Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date // -,' You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: JEFF GREEN Name: ,L company/ organization: Address: Phone: J~'~ c'7'~c'~ ? Fax/e-mail: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to th__~,_C, ommittee Chair: JEFF GP-,EEN Company/ Organization: Address: /40 ~ .~ ,',,~ o., ~. C"J'- Phone: ..,~-~0 ~'~_ ~) .~_~ Fax/e-mail: Subject: ...~'A ~.- //~. ~ ea. ~'~ .~ v' R,~. PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: JEFF GREEI~I Company/ / Organization: Phone: .'~::~'- '~ ~//~-//7 Fax/e-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date //"' ,/"~ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and_present it to the Committee Chair: JEFF GREEI~ Company/ Organization: C~-~'~ 0 C Address: /~,~2<~ ~../~.~._r"- ~, T' Phone: ~'~,-~' "0"~ 6'~ Fax/e-mail: Subject: /'~7-~'-~ ~ -- ~ ~--~//~,/,~/"~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the C!ty Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Name: '"'~'v'~ ~ -- / Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Fax/e-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for anyone subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and preseQt it to_the Committee Chair: JEFF GREE~ Or§anization: Phone: "~'~ ' [(0 i~--~ Fax/I-mail' ~-~,~ g~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Meeting Date Committee ~0 You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: ~ '7 71 ¢" Fax/e-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: JEFF GREEI~ Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Fa)de-mail: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date I I / 1"~ I ' You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present.it to the Committee Chair: JEFF GREEN Name: ~-~ ~ //~ ~.~ ]/0~ ~ Organization: Address: )~'~ [-~ l-f ~ ~-~-J/-~ e~ ~ Phone: ~ ~ ~_~ (_~ ~ ~f~ Fax/e-mail: Subject: q ~ O~ T ~' ~-- ~-- (~C''~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Develo_oment Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Cared_and present it to the Committee Chair: Name: Company/ Organization: Address: ~ Phone: 3~--~¢~ Fax/e-mail: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: JEFF Company/ , Organization: Address: !~-?~ Phone: Fa)de-mail: Subject: FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM p ~p. ,O...~at!on,!lmpa~t'~r~g~,§a~!! ~ UMff8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL PROJECT S~ET ' : 2~0-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 200~ NUMBER NJ~ ........... FROM ....... ~ ....... TO ............................ NO~8 C' A~d Dr. Norris S.R. 204 .............................................. ~73,000 ~73,~00 C Air~ Dr. SP RR Widen RR Bddge $320,000 $320,00u C Ai~ Dr. Spur Line Grade Separation ~ Spur Line $1,500,000 $1.500,00u TSK040 Akers Rd. A-E Ca~l Widen canal brid~e (AE Canal~ , $120,~9 iAIlen Rd. ~a~meyer InsMll Signal $1~,000 $120,~0 ~Allen Rd. Reina Rd. Install Signal $120.~0 $120,000 ]Allen Rd. Nodega Rd. InsMII Signal $120,000; $1~,~0 Allen Rd. Meachem Install Signal $120,0~ $1~,~0 ~Allen Rd. S.R. 58 Brimhall $1,078,739 $1,078,739 Allen Rd. Palm Ave. Install Signal $120,000 $120,0~ ~Allen Rd. Brim~ll St~kdale $1,0~,970 $1,054,9/0 ~K009 ~Allen Rd. G L Slough Widen Culved ~ Sra. 236+60 (G~se Lake) $12,000 $0 $12,000 Allen Rd. Pana~ Ln Ming Ave. $2,090,000 $2,090,000 Allen Rd. SP RR Improve ~rade crossing at Sra. 52+80 $1~,000 $100,000 Allen Rd. Kern River Canal Construct canal bridge at Sta. 150+00 (River Canal) $180,000 $180,000 Allen Rd. Mi~ Ave. St~kdale Hw $696,667 $696,667 Allen Rd. Kern River Construct Bddoe (Kern R~ver) ' ~,000,000 ~,000,000 Allen Rd. C Valley Canal 'Construct Canal Brid~e (Cross Valley Canal) $500,000 $500,000 Ashe Rd. McKee Rd. Install Sionat $120,000 $120,000 Ashe Rd. Hoskin9 Rd. Install Sional $120,000 $120,000 Ashe Rd. Berkshire Rd. Install Sional $0 $0 TBK046 Ashe Rd. Panama Ln. Haffis Rd. $0 $0 83007 Ashe Rd. A-E Canal Canal bridoe at Sta. 28+50 (A~in-Edison) (50% Dist~ $0 $640,439 ~she Rd. District Blvd Install Signal $0 $0 T8K046 Ashe Rd. Hards SJ RR Widen Ashe $0 $175,0~ Be~shire Rd. 1320' W/O Wible ,660' W/o Wibl $55,900 $55,90U Breckenfidge Rd. Morning Vineland $727,527 $727,527 Breckenfid~e Rd. Vineland Edison Rd. $677.152 $677,152 Brimhall Rd. Renfro Allen $505,316 $505.316 Brimhall Rd. Jenkins Rd. Instil Signal $0 T8K078 Brim~ll Rd. Allen ~lnstall Signal $0 $12,1~ BHmhall Rd. Allen ~OId Farm $173,833 $240,833 Bfim~ll Rd. Old Farm Install Signal $120.000 $120.000 Bfimhall Rd. Old Farm :Jeweffa $348,333 $348,333 T8K05g Bfimhall Rd. Jewetta Instil Signal $0 $51,53g Brimhall Rd. Jeweffa Verdugo $223,303 $245.303 Brimhall Rd. Verdugo Install Signal $1~,000 $120,~O Brimhall Rd. Verdu~o Calloway $245,303 $245,303 ~rimhall Rd. Calloway Install Signal $0 $0 BHmhall Rd. Calloway Coffee $128,098 $128,098 TOK007 Bfimhall Rd. Call.ay Coff~ Widen Brimhall - Coffee to Windsong No~h Side) $2~,000 Brimhall Rd. Ha~esl Creek Rd. Instil Signal $0 $0 Buena Vista Rd. Parma Ln. Pacheco Rd. $625,ggg $625,ggg~ Buena Vista Rd. Harris Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $1 Buena Vista Rd. ' Pacheco Rd. White Lane ~30,000 ~30,000~ Buena Vista Rd. White Lane Stockdale Dev. Agrmnt covers construction of 3 SB and 1 NB la $0 $0 Buena Vista Ed. SJ RR Improve grade crossin~ at Sra. 52+80 $100,000 $100.000 Buena Vista Rd. Oampus Park Dr. Install Signal $120,000 $120.000 ~.;~:~,',r.~,; Buena Vista Rd. Kern River Canal Widen canal ~x culve~ at Sra. 175+60 (River Canal'~ ~' ~ =. ~ ~0,000 T6K073 California Oak A St. Widenln~ $13,152 $~3.8g0 S:WR~ECT~TIRW~m~ Pha~ II, qpw Page I FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UMITS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL PR~ECT S~EET · : l :: .. ~?..' ~' '~ ': 2000-2001 2001~2002 2002-2003 200~2004 2~4-2005 200~ NUMBER ~E FROM TO ·. NOTE8 Calloway Dr. 7th S~ndard Hageman $1,734,131 $1,7~, 131 Galloway Dr, Nodeoa Rd. Install Si9nal (50% Fund~) $60,000 $60,00C TOK013 Callowa~ Dr. Friant Kern Canal Widen ~nal brid~e (Combin~ with Olive brid~es) $0 Galloway Dr. Hageman Meacham $0 $0 Call.ay Dr. Meacham S.R. 58 $~0,079 $~0,079 TOK~8 Galloway Dr. S.R. 58 Bdmhall Ciys potion - $95,000 $0 $95,000 T9K~ Galloway Dr. AT&SF RR $0 $250,000 V-tleya Ca~ Grade Sep. ~ AT&SF (Ci~'s ~dion - $250,000) T4K01 1 Calloway Dr. Bdmhall C $0 $0 T3K015 Call.ay Dr. C Valley Canal Kern River Bridges on CVC & Kern River $0 $3,779,445 T4K011 Call.ay Dr. C Valle~ Canal St~kdale ' ~ $0 Casa Loma Dr. Union Ave. Co~onw~ ~ dmprove 9fade crossi~ at Sra. 1 +42 $718,561 ; $718,561 Casa Loma Dr. Union Ave Signal M~ifi~tion $120,000 $120,000 Casa Loma Dr. Co~o~ Rd Instil Signal $120,000 $120,0~ Casa Lo~ Dr. .25 mi ~o Madison Widen ~na] culveA at S~. 38+50 ~0,000 ~0,000 Ca~ Loma Dr. Co~onw~ Rd. Mt. Vernon Rc $0 ~K030 Chester Avenue 6th St. Install Signal $50,000 $50,000 China Grade Loop Manor Round Mount; $923,287 $923,287 Coffee Rd. 7th S~ndard No~(s $180 $180 Coffee Rd. Downin~ Rd. Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000 $60,~0 Coffee Rd. S.R. 58 Tmxtun $967,500 $967,500 T3K016 Coffee Rd. Brimhall Rd. widen $370,057 T4K052 Coffee Rd. .5 mi s/o SR 58 Grade Sep. ~ AT&SF $0 $8,647,757 Edison Rd. Alfred Harrell H~. Install Si0nal $120,000 $120,000 Edith Rd. S.R. 178 Br~ken~dge $1,953,540 $1,953,540 Edith Rd. Br~kenrid~e Edison H~. $1,463,500 $1,463,500: Faiffax Rd. Redbank Rd. SR 58 $507,108 $507,10~ Faiffax Rd. Redbank Rd. Install SI0nal $120,000 S~ 20,000 Faiffax Rd. 8R 50 Widen 8.H. 58 bfld~o at ~. 45+?5 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Faiff~ Rd. ~SR 58 ~ Ramps Install Si0nals $240.~0 $240,000 Faiffax Rd. AIf. Harrel Widen Int. ~ AIf. Harrel $1,700,000 $1,700,0~ Faiffax Rd. AIf. Harrel Paladino $716,072 $716,072 Faiffax Rd. Panorama Niles $107,500 Faiffax Rd. SR ~78 Const. Int. ~ 178 $700,000 ~00,000 $0 $1,257,500 ~K021 Faiffax Rd. SR 178 PSR T6K008 Faiffax Rd. Faiff~ Rd.& SR 178 ~000 Ft. west ~dd west~und lane ~ $357,141 Faiff~ Rd. Hi0hla~ Knolls Dr. Install Signal $120,0~ $120,000 TSK0~5 Faiffax Rd. College Ave. Install Signal ~ $53,991 Fai~iew Rd. Monitor St. Union Ave. $194,586 S~ 94,586 Fruitvale Ave. S.R.99 Snow Travel Link Deficiency $0 $0 F~itvale Ave. Snow Norfls ~64.5~5 Frui~ale Ave. 600' ~o Snow Widen CulveA ~ Beardsle~ Canal $~00,000 $~ 00,000 Fmi~ale Ave. Ha~eman S.R. 58 $1,362,500 $1,362,500 Fmitvale Ave. Meany Ave. Install Si0nal $120,000 $120,000 Fmi~ale Ave. Downin~ Ave. Instil Signal $120,~0 $120,~0 Gosford Rd. McKee Rd. Instil ~i0nal $120,000 · Gosford Rd. McCutcheon Rd. Instil Si0nal $120,~0 $1~,~0 Gosford Rd. BeAshire Rd. Install Signal $~ 20,0~ $1~.000 Gosford Rd. Ha~s Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,~ Ha~eman Rd. Renfro Santa Fe Wa~ $985,758 $985,758 Ha~eman Rd, Renfro Install Sig~l $120,~0 Ha~eman Rd. Jenkins Rd. Install Signal $1~,0~ S:~ROJEC TSt TiF~Working~dmft Phase II. qpw Page 2 10/16/00 FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UMITS : FY FY FY . FY FY FY TOTAL PROJECT * STREET .~ '' ": ': :: ' ' ' '? 2000.2001 200t.2002 :: 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005+ NUMBER NAME '::'FROM i' TO ' ' 'NOTES : Hageman Rd. Santa Fe Wa), Install Signal $120,000 $120:00~ Hageman Rd. AT&SF RR Improv~ Grade Crossing (~ RR $0 $0 Hageman Rd. Santa Fe Way Old Farm $490,606 $490,606 Hageman Rd. Allen Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Hageman Rd. Old Farm Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Hageman Rd. Old Farm Jewetta $0 $0 1'ZK032 Hageman Rd. Jewetta Install Signal $130,000 $0 $130,000 Hageman Rd. lewetta Verdugo $482,104 ~ $482,104 T1K024 Hageman Rd. 'Verdugo Install Signal $0 $0 T1K023 Hageman Rd. iVerdugo Calloway $34,000 $482,104 $516,104 T8K042 Hageman Rd. Calloway 1300' E $0 $49,579 T7K004 Hageman Rd. Calloway Install Signal $0 $0 Hageman Rd. Coffee Install Signal $0 .$0 Hageman Rd. Patton Way Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 TSK053 Hageman Rd. Fruitvale Install Signal $0 $126,493 Hageman Rd. Fruitvale Mohawk $316,529 $316,529 Hageman Rd. Mohawk Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 TOK012 Ha~leman Rd. Mohawk SR 204 Flyover $210,000 $500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $5,785;000 Harris Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Gosford Rd. $445,000 ;$445,000 TIK027':~ HarflsRd.:/":":::~!~d~ SJRRi~i~:~i~:~i'"::'~:.'i '~i:~.;i'~i::~:~!~,: Newatgrad~!'~'d~slng'~:!:[::.=;i:;!?i:;.:~' :"': ",:;~:i: ':ii'i::::;? '::,~,: $!35~000 :::?: ::. Hosking Rd. Stine Rd. Akers Rd. $145,000 $145,000 Hoskin~ Rd. Fenton St. Install Si~l $120,000 $120,~0 Hughes La. Miq Ave. Terrace Wy. $507,305 $507.3n5 Jenkins Rd. Hageman B~mhall Rd. $1,024,873 $1,024,873 Jenkins Rd. Brimhall Rd. 1500' N/o St~ S~8,8~ $208,800 Jenkins Rd. Meacham Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,0~ Jewe~a Ave. Snow Meachem Rd. $1,365,824 $1,365,824 Jewefla'Ave. Kra~meyer Install Signal $1~,000 $1~,000 dewetta Ave. Snow Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Jewetta Ave. Reina Install Signal $1~,000 $1 ~,0~ Jewetta Ave. Noriega Install Signal $1~,000 $120,0~ Jewefla Ave. Ueachem Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $~20,000 ~ernCanyon Road Momin9 ~S.R. 178 $1,868,724 $1,868,724 Kern Canyon Road Vineland Rd. Install Signal $120,0~ $120,000 Kern Canyon Road ~Mesa Maria Dr. Install Signal $120,000 $~20,000 Kern Canyon Road I Edith Rd Install Signal $120,000, $1~,000 Kern River ~press' Renfro Coffee Rd. Future ~pressway ~ Se $5,000,000 Kern River Freewa WMB Renfro Future Freeway Construction, No Fee Fundin9 $0 $0 Kern River Freewa~ Renfro S.R. 99 Cons. Cost from Ci~/Count~10% funded~5 Mil. if · s19,600,ooa $~9,soo,ooo Main Pl~a Drive Brimhall Rd. Rosedale Hw $200,000 $2g0,0~ Main Plaza D~ve AT&SF RR Improve 9fade crossin9 $100,000 $100,000 T3K03g Mawr St. Carrier Brid~e replacement $g6,440 McCutcheon Rd. Profess Rd. ' Install Signal , $120,000 $120,000 Ming Ave. Renfro Rd Bue~ Vis~ F $1,102,424 $1,102,424 Min9 Ave. Allen Instil Signal $120,~ $1~,0~ T8K052 Min9 Ave. Buena Vista ~lns~ll Si~l ~/ $22,~6 Min~ Ave. Kern River Ca~l ~ns~uct canal culve~ at Sra. 45+18 (River Canal) $~0,~0j S:~PROJE C TS~ T IFtWorking~dralt Phase II. qpw Page 3 10/16/00 FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM · LIMITS · · .. . FY FY ' FY FY FY FY TOTAL PROJECT STREET · ' .. 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005+ NUMBER NAME FROM · .: TO NOTES T1K034 Ming Ave. Gosford New Stine Expand Intersections $119,500 $119,500 Mohawk Ave, Olive Hageman $960,570 $960,570 Mohawk Ave, Hageman S.R. 58 $2,890,000 $2,890,000 Mohawk Ave. Callowa¥ Canal Construct Callowa¥ Canal Bddge $500,000 $500,000 Mohawk Ave. S.R. 58 .5 s/o SR58 $1,585,500 $1,585,500' Mohawk Ave. .5 s/o SR58 Truxtun $2,015,500, $2,015,500 TSK064 Mohawk Ave. Kern River Construct Kern River Bridge; Cross Valley Bddge $50,000 $250,000 $3,610,000 -$25,000 $3,910,000 Mohawk Ave. AT&SF RR Grade Seperation @ AT&SF RR $1,500,000 $1,500,000 !Mohawk Ave. Truxtun California ;Construct median $0 $0 Monitor St. Astor Ave. Panama Lane $362,500 $362,500 Monitor St. A-E Canal Construct canal bridge at Sra. 93+32 (A and E Canal $500,000 $500,000 ?_ornin~l Dr. Ail. Harrel Paladino $0 $1,254,000 Morning Dr. AIf. Harrel Paladino Construct 3 Culverts/Bridges $0 $540,000 ~oming Dr. Paladino Panorama $0 $0 Morning Dr. Panorama S.R. 178 $0 $0 Morning Dr. S.R. 178 Const. Int. (~178 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Morning Dr. S.R, 178 Colle. ge $387,000 $387,000 Morning Dr. Auburn Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Morning Dr. College Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Morning Dr. College Niles $107,500 $107,5001 Mt. Vernon Ave. Casa Loma Dr. Belle Terrace $753,125 $753,125 T8K056 Mt. Vernon Ave. SR 58 Signalize Ramps $0 $132,976 Mt. Vernon Ave. SR 178 EB Ramp $0 Mt. Vista Drive Pacheco Rd. 600' N/o Pach, $36,250 $36,250 T8K077 Mt. Vista Drive SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sta, 52+80 $93,000 $0 $100,600 T8K057 * Mt. Vista Drive White Install signal $0 $44,955 Norris Rd. Calloway Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Norris Rd. Riverlakes Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000 $60,000 Norris Rd. Coffee Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Norris Rd. Patton Wa,/ Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Norris Rd. S.R. 99 Airport $710,822 $710,822 Norris Rd. Airport Chester Widen for Two Way Left Turn Lane $0 $0 Norris Rd. Chester Manor $7,773 $7,773 ~:¥~:~!~F; ~,':. ~? Norris Rd. Manor ,~T~.~ ~ Upgrade Si~lnal $120,000 $120,000 ~.~, ~.~, ;,..,.~,~,~.~ ~'.:~ ..... ~' ~,,~ /,, .,~<.~,.,..,..~,, ~.,. ....... , .... Old Farm Rd. Reina Rd. Install Signal $120.000 $120.000 Old Farm Rd. Noriega Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000, Old River Rd. SR 119 Panama Ln. $1,134,354. $1,134,354' Old River Rd. McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Old River Rd. McCutcheon Rd. Install Signal $1,005 $1,005 Old River Rd. Berkshire Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Old River Rd. Panama Ln. Pacheco Rd. $583,075 $583,075 Old River Rd. Harris Rd. Install Signal $600 $600 Old River Rd. Pacheco Rd, Campus Park ) · $480,633 $480,633 TSK076 Old River Rd. SJRR Improve grade crossing at Sra. 52+80 $172,000 -$7,600 $172,000 Old River Rd. Campus Park Dr. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Old River Rd. N/o SP RR Relocate Tower $0 $60,000 Old Stine Rd. Ming Ave. Belle Terrace $475,000 $475,000 Old Stine Rd. 'Stine Canal Widen canal culvert (Stine) $60,000 $60,00(~ Old Sline Rd. Belle Terrace Stockdale Hw $235,659 $235,659 Olive Dr. Jewetta Callowa¥ $777,818 $777,818 Olive Dr. Jewetta Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 S:V::~ROJECTS~TIh-'tWorle'ng~draff Phase II. qpw Page 4 10/16/00 ;. FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ~ITS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL PROJECT S~EET ' : : ' ': 2000a001 2001a~2 2~2a003 200~004 2004a005 200~ NUMBER N~E .................. ~ROM ........... ~ ................................ ~EP ............................................................................................................................ .... Olive Dr. Call.ay Install Signal $120:00~ TOK013 Olive Dr. Calloway Canal F-K Canal Brid~es ~ Calloway & Fr. Kern (Including Calloway) $1,050,000 $0 $1,150,000 Olive Dr. Calloway Rivedakes ~30,000 ~30,00~ Olive Dr. Rivedakes ~ffee $53,750 $53,750 T8K0~ Olive Dr. Coffee Instil Signal $0 $128,799 Olive Dr. Rivedakes Install Signal $1~,000 $1~.000 Olive Dr. Coffee Aired $1,209,873 $1,209,873 Olive Dr. PaEon Way Install Slg~I $120,000 $120,0~ Olive Dr. SR 99 Beardsley Cai Widen 99 Interchange; Widen Beardsley Canal Culv, . ~70,00~ ~70,000 Olive Dr SP RR Grade Se~ration $1,5~,000 $1,5~,000 Oswelt St. S.R. 178 Brundage Median'Reconstruction $430,000 ~30,000 Oswell St. Virginia Ave Instil Signal $120,000 $120,000 Oswell St. Bmndage Lane Install Signal $0 $0 Oswell St. S.R. 58 Ramps Install Signals $240,000 $240,000 Oswell St. Sunset RR gonsl. Grade Sep. ~ AT&SF $100,000 $100,000 Pach~o Rd. Renfro Rd~ Buena Vis~ ~ d $1,596,364 $1,596,3~ Pach~o Rd. Allen Rd Install Signal $120,~0 $120,~ Pach~ Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Gosf~rd $580,000 ' $580,000 Pacheco Rd. B V Canal Widen Canal Culved (Buena Vista) $80,000 ~0.0~ Pacheco Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Instil Sig~l $120,000 $120,000 Pache~ Rd. Old River Install Signal $120,000 $1~,000 Pa che~ Rd. Gosford Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Pacheco Rd. AT&SF RR Improve 9rade cmssin9 at Sta. 191+82 (~R 1/2 Fu~ $100,000 $100,~0 Pacheco Rd. Mountain Vista Rd, Install Signal $120,~0 $120,000 ~K065 Pach~ Rd. KI Canal-West Widen ~nal culved ~ K.l.-West Branch $20,000 $~,000 Paladino Dr. Faidax Mornin9 $1,059,143 $1,059,143 Paladino Dr. Faidax Install Signal $120,000 $1~,000 ~K119 Paladino Dr. Mornin~ .3 mi w/o Mas $524,000 $660,333 $1,1~,333 ~K119 Paladino Dr. Momin9 .3 mi w/o Mas" Constm~ 5 Culve~s (Includ~ in roadway project) $102,000 $102,~0 Paladino Dr. Mornin~ Install Signal $120,000 $1~,000 Paladino Dr. Masterson Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,0~ Paladino Dr. .3 mi w/o Edison 1 mi e/o A H ~ $1,116,024 $1,116,024 Ipanama Ln. Renfm Rd. Gosford Rd. $3,128,794 $3,128,794 Panama Ln. Renfro 1.4 mi East Relate canal parallel w/so. dw Sra. 0+00 - 74+84 $569,000 $569,000 ~K066 Panama Ln. B V Canal Widen canal culve~ at Sta. 74+84 (Buena Visla) $17,000i $0 $17,000 Panama Ln. Allen Install Signal $120,000 $120.000 Panama Ln. Buena Vista Install Signal $1~,000 $120,000 Panama Ln. Old River Install Signal $120,000 $120.0~ Panama Ln. Sunset RR Improve ~rade crossin9 at Sra. 186+70 (Sun.t) $100,000 $100,000 ~K058' Panama Ln.. Gosford Rd Ins~ll Signal $132,000 $0 $132,000 T6K074 Panama Ln. Gosford Rd. Ashe Development a~reement for 112 width W/B and 1 ~E $0 Panama Ln. Reliance Dr. Instil Sig~l $1 ~,000 $120,000 Pana~ Ln. kshe Rd Instil Signal $I~,000 $120,0~ Parma Ln. Fenton St. Install Signal $120,000 $1~,000 T5K024 Panama Ln. A-E Canal Widen canal bddge at Sta, 312+80 (A. and E. Canal $0 $669,827 TSK025 Parma Ln. Farmers Canal Widen canal culved at Sra. 309+ 12 (FarmeCs Canal $0 $117,540 Parma Ln. Farmers Canal Relate ~nal parallel w/so r~ Sta 309+ 12 - 312+31 $0 Panama Ln. Ashe Stine Rd. $0 $0 T6K074 Panama Ln. Ashe Stine Rd. Project built 2 lanes? $0 ~88,785 Panama Ln. Ashe Stine Rd. Ca~l Culved ~ mid-~ction ~ A-E Canal $0 $200,0~ T4K032, 910 ~anama Ln, St/ne Rd. M~i~ Signal $0 $54,369 T8K035 Parma Ln. Stine Rd. Wible Rd. Wideni~ deficient s~ions only ~ $7,325 Panama Ln. Akers Rd. Install SI9~1 $0 S:~ROJECT~TI~Wo~mfl P~ II. qpw Page 5 FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LIMITS FY FY : FY FY FY FY TOTAL PROJECT' STREET . : ': :::,:i;::ii:i:~;I ', .' ' 2000-200~1' 2001.2002 .' .2002-2003 2003-2004 · 2004-2005 2005+ NUMBER NAME FROM '. TO ' . NOTES. ~ Panama Ln. Wible Rd. So. H St. $0 $01 I Panama Ln. SR 99 Install Signals (~ Ramps $0 · $01 T5K038 Panama Ln. SR 99 Widen bridge at S.H. 99 $0 $3,054,899 Panama Ln. So. H St. Signal Modification $(3 $0 Panama Ln. · So. H St. Union Ave. Widen deficient section onl), $361,703 $361,703 Panama Ln. Union Ave. Signal Modification $0 $0 Panama Ln. Union Ave. Fairfax Rd. $1,720,000i $1,720,000 Panama Ln. Cottonwood Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panama Ln. Oswell Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panama Ln. Fairfax Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panama Ln. Fairfax Rd. SR 184 $430,000 $430,000 Panama Ln. SR 184 Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panama Rd. Union Ave. S.P.R x R $2,543,553 $2,543,553 Panama Rd. Union Ave. Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 Panama Rd. 0.4 mi elo Union 0.9 mi e/o Uni ~Relocata Parallel Canal. So.lside rdw)'. ~ Sra. 21 +4( $203,250 $203,250 Panama Rd. .95 mi e/o Union Widen canal culvert at Sta. 50+30. Imp Gr Xim:d ~ RI $140,000 $140,000 Panama Rd. Oswell Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panama Rd. Fairfax Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panama Rd. 2.0 mi e/o Union 0.3 mi w/o 18z Relocate parallel canal from Sra. 106+66 - 247+10 $1,053,300 $1,053,300 Panama Rd. SPR x R 0.2 mi w/o 18,~ $182,398 $182,398 Panama Rd. 0.2 mi wlo 184 SR 184 $521,600 $521,600 Panama Rd. SR 184 Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 T8K055 Panorama Dr. River Install Signal $0 $123,122 TZK062 Panorama Dr. Mt. Vernon Install Signal $65,000 $65,000 Panorama Dr. Columbus Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Panorama Dr. Morning Dr. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000, Patton Wa), Mean)' Ave. Downing Ave. $72,500 $72,500 Patton Wa), Mean), Ave. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Patton Way Downin~j Ave. Install Signal, $120,000 $120,000 Pioneer Dr. Morning Vineland $408,065 $408,065 Renfro Rd. Santa Fe Way Johnson $2,357,303 $2,357,303 Renfro Rd. Meachem Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Renfro Rd. Johnson Stockdale $401,545 $401,545 Renfro Rd. Stockdale Kern River $0 $0 Renfro Rd. Ming Pacheco $1,606,182 $1,606,182 Renfro Rd. Kern River Canal Construct canal culvert at Sra. 45+ 18 (River CanalI $150,000 $150,000 Santa Fe Way Reina Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Seventh Standard F iAIlen S.R. 99 $1,505,000 $1,505,000 Seventh Standard F Callowa¥ Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Seventh Standard F i Coffee Install Signal $120,000 I' $120,000 Seventh Standard F S.R. 99 Widen 99 Int.; Grade Sep.@ SP $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Seventh Standard F N/B S.R. 99 Ramp Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Seventh Standard F S.R. 99 S.R. 65 $215,000 $215,000 Seventh Standard F Airport Dr. Chester Ave. $430,000 $430,000 Seventh Standard F Airport Dr. Install Signal $120,000 $120,00(] Seventh Standard F Chester Ave Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 Shannon Dr. Stable Ave. Taft Hwy. $55,100 $55,100 Snow Rd. Jewetta Verdu9o $275,606 $275,606 Snow Rd. Callowa¥ Canal Fdant-Kem C; Reconstruct Callowa¥ and Fdant-Kem bddges $1,000,000 $1,000,000 S now Rd. Verdugo Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Snow Rd. Verdugo Callowa), $275,606 $275,606 Snow Rd. Callowa), Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Snow Rd. I Callowa), Fruitvale $1,223,166 $1,223,166 S:lPROJEC TS~ TIF~Working~draft Phase II. qpw Page 6 10/16/00 FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UMITS FY FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL PROJECT STREL~' .' . · ' . . ': .' .'.. · · ' i : ' ' : : ,. 2000'2001 ' 2001-2002 . 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 200.5+ NUMBER NAME ' : .: FR°M TO NOTES , ':: · Snow Rd. Rivedakes Dr. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Snow Rd. Coffee Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Snow Rd. Patton Way Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Snow Rd. Fruitvale Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Snow Rd. Golden State Install Si~lnal $120,000 $120,000 South 'H' St. Taft Hwy. Hosking Rd. $601,253 $601,253 South 'H' St. Hosking Rd. A-E Canal $630,668 $630,668 T5K041 South 'H" St. A-E Canal Widen canal bddge at Sta. 93+32 (A and E CanalI $0 $183,524 South Union Ave. Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 119 Buena Vista Rd. SR 99 R/W & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $5,652,200; $5.6527nn SR 119 Buena Vista Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 S R 119 Old River Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 119 Gosford Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 S R 119 Ashe Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 =SR 119 Fenton St. Install SiEinal $120,000 $120,000 SR 119 Stine . InstalISignal $120,000 $120,00D SR 119 Wible Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 119 S/B Ramps SR 99 Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 184 Panama Rd. SR 58 $3,456,565 $3,456,565 SR 184 Mt. View Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 184 Panama Lane. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 184 .25 mi n/o Hermosa ,35 mi n/o Her fi~elocate canal parallel to east r/w Sta. 171+11-176+~ $50,000 $50,000 SR 184 .54 mi n/o Hermosa Widen canal box culvert at Sta. 187+00 $110,000 $110,00('1~ SR 184 Muller Rd Install Signal $120,000 $120,00fl SR 184 Edison Hwy. Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 SR 184 Edison Hwy. Niles $958,098 $958,098 S R 184 S P RR Construct grade separation at Sta. 335+40 $500,000 $500,000 SR 184 Breckenridge Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 184 Eucalyptps Dr, ' Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale Enos Lane .5 mi w/o Ren RA'V & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $4,g05,000 $4,g05.000 SR 58/Rosedale Enos Lane Install Signal $120.000 $120,000 SR 581Rosedale Nord Install Signal $120,000 $120.000 SR 58/Rosedale Heath Install Signal $120.000 $120,000 SR 581Rosedale .5 mi WIG Renfro AIl'en Rd R/W & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $4,747,872 $4.747.872 SR 581Rosedale Renfro Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale .Jenkins Rd. Install Signal $120,000 · $120,000, SR 58/Rosedale Allen Rd :Signal Modification $40.000 $40,000 SR 58/Rosedale Allen Rd Gibson R/VV & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $7.g28,220 $7.g28,220 SR 58/Rosedale Old Farm Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale `jewetta Worms $120.000 $120.000 SR 58/Rosedale AT&SF RR Widen RR Grade Sep. (Jewetta) $480,000 $480.000 ,$R 58/Rosedale Coffee Fruilvale Widen Friant Kern Canal Bridge $0 $396,000 SR 58/Rosedale Coffee Fruitvale Widen 2 Canal Bridges $600,000 $600,000 SR 581Rosedale Verdugo Signal Modification $0 $0 SR 58/Ro$=da;e Oallowa¥ Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosodale Coffee Signal Modification $0 $0 SR 58/Rosedale, Main Plaza Dr. Install Signal (50% Funded) $0 SR 581Rosedale Patton Wa), Install Signal $120.000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale Fruitvale Signal Modification $120,000 $120.000 SR 58/Rosedale Mohawk Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 S:lPROJECTStTIF~Wo~dng~draft Phase II. qpw Page 7 · 1 · 10/16/00 FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM uMrrs .;ii , . FY . FY : FY FY FY FY TOTAL PROJECT STREET :.:. ' 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005+ NUMBER NAME FROM : · TO i NOTE8 SR 58/Rosedale Landco Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 TOK006 SR 581Rosedale Gibson SR99 Widen Rosedale $150,000 -$150,000 $150,000 SR 58/Rosedale Gibson Signal Modification $120,000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale AT&SF RR Improve RRX ~ AT&SF (W/o Landco) $100,000 $100,000 Stine Rd./New Stin( Taft Hwy. Panama Ln. $1,165,024 $1,165,024 Stina Rd./New Stine McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Stine Rd./New Stine Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Stine Rd./New Stine Berkshire Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 T5K024 Stine Rd./New Stine A-E Canal Widen Canal Culvert at Sra. 92+95 (A-E Canal) $0 $183,515 Stina Rd./New Stine Panama Ln. Harris Rd. $199,617 $199,617 Stine Rd./New Stine Harris Rd. Install Signal $0 $0 Stine RdJNew Stin~ Farmers canal Widen Canal Culvert (Farmer's Canal) $0, $6 Stine Rd./New Stine Harris Rd. S.P.R x R $0 $0 Stockdale Hwy. WMB Heath Road $2,480,455 $2,480,455 Stockdale Hwy. SP RR Improve RR,X (~ Buttonwillow $100,000 $100,000 Stockdale Hwy. Nord Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Stockdale Hwy. Heath Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Stockdale Hwy. Heath Road Renfro $677,152 $677,152 S,lockdale Hwy. Renfro Oak St. Median reconstruction $2,255,299 $2,341,299 TSK031 Stockdale Hwy. Jenkins Rd. Allen Rd $80,455 T5K013 Stockdata Hwy. Coffee Reconstruct Stockdale (~ Coffee $588,246 T3K036 California Intersection Widening $0 TZK106 Stockdale Hwy. Renfro Install Signal $65,000 $0 $65,000 Stockdale Hwy. Buena Vista Install Si~lnal $0 $0 SR 58 Real Road S.R. 99 R/W & Constr. Cost from CalTrans $0 $0 SR 58 S.R. 99 Cottonwood R/W & Constr. Cost from CalTrans $0 $0 SR 65 James 7th Standard $0 $0 Taft Hwy. SR 99 South 'H' St. $86,000 $86,000 Taft Hwy. South 'H' St. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Taft Hwy. South 'H' St. .25 mi e/o 'H' $456,415 $456,415 Taft Hwy. .25 mi e/o 'H' .55 mi e/o 'H' $294,364 $294,364 Taft Hwy. .55 mi e/o 'H' .75 mi e/o 'H" '$184,121 $184,121 Taft HWY. .75 mi e/o 'H" Union Ave. $107,500 $107,500 Truxtun Ave. Oak Widen intersection $0 $6 Union Ave. White Ln. SR 58 $1,075,000 $1,075,000 Union Ave. SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sta. 265+16 (SJ RR) $100,000 $100,000 Union Ave. KI Canal-East Widen canal box culvert at Sra. 295+81 (K.I. - East b~ $40,000 $40,000 Verdugo Rd. Reina Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Verdugo Rd. Norie(ja Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Verdugo Rd. Meacham Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Verdu~lo Rd. Palm Ave. Brimhall rd. $145,000 $145,00(] Vineland Rd. S R 58 Edison HWY. $100,078 $100,078 Vineland Rd. Edison HWY. Eucalyptus Dr $443,077 $443,077 Vineland Rd. ~P RR Improve railroad crossing (SPRR) $100,00~ $100,000 Vineland Rd. Eucal~,ptus Dr. Pioneer Dr. $115,076 $115,076 White Ln. !Renfro Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 White Ln. Allen Install Si~lnal $129,000 $120,000 T~K050 White Ln. Buena Vista Install Signal $0 $40,524 White Ln. Mountain Vista Dr. Install Signal $6 $42,900 White Ln. Mountain Vista Dr. Old River $(] $94,303 TSK039 Whiita Ln. Mountain Vista Dr. Saddle Drive Add eastbund lane $0 $76,2031 TZK095 White Ln. Grissom Install Signal $383,000 $383,000J White Ln. KI Canal Widen culvert at KI Canal $(~ $42,700~ S:tPROJEC TS~ T IF~ Workiagtdra~ Phase II. qpw Page 8 10/16/00 FY 2000 - 2005 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UMITS FY FY FY FY FY FY TOTAL PROJECT STREET : 2000-2001 200t.2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005+ NUMBER NAME FROM TO ': . . NOTES ' T~K-~[~-' -- White L~-'-' SR 99- .... Widen interchange --- __ $400,000 $4,000,000 -$2,139,961 $2,360100--~1 White Ln./Muller Av, ;Union Ave. Cottonwood R $915,151 $915,151.1 White Ln./Muller Av, ,,Cottonwood Rd. Fairfax Rd. $2,338,351 $2,338,351 White Ln./Muller Av, ,,Cottonwood Rd. Install Si~lnal $120,000 $120,000 White Ln./Muller Av, ,,Oswell Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 White Ln.IMuller Av, ,.Arvin RR Line Improve grade crossing at Sta. 734+ 14 (Arvin) $100,00(] $100,000 White Ln./Muller Av, ~Eastside canal Widen canal culvert at Sta. 745+19 (Eastside) $40,000 $40,000 White Ln./Muller Aw ~Fairfax Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 White Ln./Muller Av, ,,Fairfax Rd. SR 184 $533,030 $533,030 Wible Rd. SR 119 Panama Ln. $1,217,684 $1,217,684 Wible Rd. McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 Wible Rd. Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000 $120,000 T5K039 Wible Rd, A-E Canal Widen canal bridge (Arvin-Edison) $0 $183,672 Wible Rd. KI Canal-West Relocate parallel canal ~} K.l.-West Branch $188,000 $188,000 Wible Rd. KI Canal-West Widen canal culvert (~ K.I.-West Branch $20,000 $20,000 Wible Rd. Ming Ave. Brundage Ln. $619.017 $619,017 Transit Costs $7,688,000 $7,688,000 P6KOOS, 730 Freeways 50% of Beltway R/W and SR 178 ' $4,453,201 $4,753,812 Administration p ~1 ty) $100,000 $100,000 Com utar Trackin System (City & Court ::'! ~::: , .~TOTALS:'~, · :,~: :.: ~:~:~. :~[..'~i:::'::?i:. :~,~:/ : :::~?i: :'i:::,'. : ~....:=;~?~::.~ :: ,:' . · .... " $228,740,1:28 : $276,778,881 S:~PROJE C TSI TIFtWorkingtdrafl Phase II. qpw Page 9 10/16/00 From: Rhonda Smiley To: John W. Stinson Date: Tue, Dec 12, 2000 9:49 AM Subject: Michelle Beck #336-0315 Notification list for Urban Development Committee meeting Shellabarger Road Issue Notice 11-13-00 MIKE AND LAURA FANUCCHI 10915 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 589-3767 MR. JOHN KIND CARRIAGE HOMES P.O. BOX 2353 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93303 837-9581 MS. NORMA DIXON 10906 CI LANTRO AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 (R) 587-6891 MR. STUART BAUGHER 7305 LUCILLE AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93308 399-6809 INET:M LBAUGHER@IGALAXY MR. LEONARD KOCH 10931 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 589-3939 MS. DEBRA COYLE 10417 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 589-3579 OR 589-5169 STEPHANIE LYNCH, FIELD REPRESENTATIVE SUPERVISOR PATRICK'S OFFICE 1115 TRUXTUN AVENUE, ROOM 503 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 PH. 868-3670 FAX 868-3677 KAREN COX 10810 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 PH. 589-9258 JANET R. CARTER 10930 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 PH. 589-2040 SHARON SPANKE HEARTLAND HOMES 10915 CILANTRO AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 PH 588-3002 FAX 588-1919 HEARTLAN@.AOL.COM WARREN AND JOY BAKER 10627 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 TIM AND SUSAN SCHAUFELBERGER 10824 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 PH. 589-0993 ELLA SIMPSON 10010 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 589-7949 JOAN-TERESE BIRD 10705 SHELLABARGER ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 mrsbird@teacher, com phone 588-7447 TIM HOWELL 13217 LYNETTE WAY BAKERSFIELD CA 93312 588-2189 S:\John\UrbanDev\Shellabarger-list.wpd . Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, desngned and located.. Factor. y farming~is n whole new scale of dairy~.~_ operatnons wnth few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations nnd penalties violations for . are/~n place and ppunty dairy inspectors have been hi Sincerely, re~ [~ D_~ar B~akersfield City Co~ngil,' I 'ask that the Bakersfteld City C. ouncil oppose the .~. l~rop~ed Borba dairi~.s ~s presently sized, de_sign.ed, and · - located. Factory farmiag is awhole new scale ox "' Operations with few ~regulations to insure'~ management. Please recommend a county moratorpi:in':''! on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting' -" until conditional use permits are required,, adequate"' buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties. for violatio.ns are ijl place-and county dairy inspectors have been hired.A ( /~ ' · . '.': Sincerely, ~~ (~~0'_ . :'::' Address ~-~c~ 6/~ ~qC~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor~ farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure same management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are ~ place and county dairy inspectors have been hired,-q~ ? · . -" Address ~20o ~..,.--~,~.a_,- ~o~-~-s T~,.-. Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the .Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. F~ctory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure same management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have.been hired, t~ Sincerely, (~~~ ...... Name'? V~ Address L'~,-qO 2-- ~[D'[r~4~c~(/(o~ "' Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, desig~d and located. ~ctory farming is a whole new scale of operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a.county moratorium on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy pe~mitfifig--- until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in plac~and coun~ davy inspectors h~ been hlre~/// ~ ~ . ' Sincerely, / Address Dear Bakersfield City Council, I' ask that the Bakersfield City Councii~po~ the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, de~ and located, l*actory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zo.nes, comprehensive regulations and penalties for wolat~ons are m place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Address // ~/'~ Dear Bakersfield.~City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield'City .Council oppose the ' proposed Borba.dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is awhole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a.county moratorium · on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting · until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. - Dear Bakersfield City Council,-~ . ...'::" I ask that the Bakersfield'City Council oppose.the. proposed Borba dairies~ as presently sized, designed, and located.. Factor. y farming is a-wh. ole new scale of operations w~th few regutat~ons to insure~ management. Please recommend a county mor~t'°~i6~'~ on existing..d, airy expansions and new dairy permitti~'~ until cond~tmnal use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspeCt0~s have been hired. Address~~ Dear Bakersfield City CoUncil, - I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired./Q, ·/~ .- ~ ~ ' Sincerely, .... Name ' Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and - located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy · operations with few regulations to insure ~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits.are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hire~d. ~. _ Sincerely,--.~.~_~~. '~~-1~ Name - ~ ~ 2615 Eagle Crest Dr Address ~ B~kersf~e[d, CA 933 l 1-2943 Dear Bakersfield Cit'y.,Coungil,?-.- .:. .... 'I ask that the Bakersfield'City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located: Factory. farming is a wh. ole new .scale of d.a,,~Y~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county morats~'t~in on existin~ dairy expansions and new dairy-permit-ting until conditiona- 1 use permits are required, "ade~l~te '' t'altl~s buffer zo.nes, comprehensive regulations.and peru for violations are in place ajtd~oun~ty dairy lnsPec't6rs Name , Dear Bakersfield City CoUncil, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the -proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use Permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. V.~ ' Sincerely, Name ~:~/,/$ .~. Address d~ ~~~~ ~~ . Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the Proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and .... located. .... Factory farming is a whole new scale of dair¥~ op~erat~ons with few regulations to insure .s~ management. Please recommend a county moratomum on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors Sincerely, ?/ Name Dear Bakersfield City Council~"- ., I. ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and '" '-~ located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy...- '"operations with few regulations' to insure ~~-~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium On existing dairy expansions and new dairy until conditional use ·permits· are required, adequate", buffer zones, comprehenslge;~eg~ilatlons and penalties ~.-~." ~ for violations are izt place and county dairy inspectors :: have been hired.~///~,. .... ]~. /~ D Dear Bakersfield City Coun~il~ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as pre~ntly sized, designed and located. ~ctory farmin~ is a whole new scale of dair~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existin~ dairy ~pansions and new dairy permittin~ until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are i~phce and county dairy inspectors Sincerely, Name Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory. farming is a wh. ole new .scale of operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Sincerely, ~ /fl'~'~-'"" Name ,~o ,'z A- Address. qo t ~- /~t/~ /~-~ ,'~'~' ~ Dear-Bakersfield Cit~ Con~yll, :' ii ask (hat 'the Baker~held City Conneil oppoSe'the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and scale located. ~ctory farming Is a whole new. of.da~l~, operations with few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county morat0ridm on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy per~i~g until conditional use permits are required,~ade'~e buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penKlt'~s for violations are in place and county dairy inspe'c~6~s have been hired. Sincerely, ~ ~ ',-~'- Name Ad.ess ~q~ ....................................................... ~_.~' ~ :. ~ _ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new .scale of dairy operations with few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hir~/~ _ , Sincerely,__-- ~,~,-.-~ ~,~)~u,~ "~ ~%~. _ Name I'~o L.--~ ~"~" ~ ~ ~~ I ask that the Ba. kersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairms as presently sized, designed and located.. Facto? farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dai~ operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Sincerely, ~}t~ Address ~z/~r/:) ,/-~,,~ znt6ro/~,t' tO ~ Dear BakersfieM City Cou~[~ ~.. · '...;'" ~ i'ask that the Bakersf~ City Counci~pg~he .. proposed Borba dairies as ~r~Sently sized, located; ~ctorj farming is a w~ole new ~cale of dairy :: operations w~th few reg~at~ons to ~nsure ~ ~ management. Please recommend a county moratoriUm~.~}'~}/ on ~isting 9?ry ~pansions and new dairy permitt!~.~: untd conditmnal use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensl~ regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors h~ been hired. ~ ~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dai.r~, operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in/place and count~ dairy inspectors have been hlretl. ~ ! ff/ ' ~ . .., Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of-dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in place and cg~j~y daixy inspectors Dear Bakersfield Cffy ~eun~q, I ask that the ~kersfield City ~eundl eppese the prepesed Berba dames as presently s~zed, designed and lecated. ~ctory farming is a w¥1e new ~cale ef eperationS with few regulat~ens te insure management. ~lease recpmmend a ceun~y merateriff~tY on ex~sting dmry ~pansmns and new dMry permffti~g until conditienal use permits are required, adequate. buffey zeges, co~rehens~ regulus ~ penalt~" for vmlatm~s ~e ~n ph~nd co~t~da~ mspec~oO ' Sincerely, b~~ ~~m~.' Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dai_r.~. operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in pJace and~n~ty dairy inspectors have been h~red~ ~~ ~ Sincerely, ~--'~'~/~/Q ~ Ad,ess Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure ~~-~¢ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on e.x. isting.~d, airy expansions and new dairy permitting untd cond~tional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Sincerely, ~-~ ~~ . Dear Bakersfield City Council,- I ask that the Bakersfield City Council o~ppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and-' located.. Factory farming is a whole new .scale of dairy: operations with few regulations to insure maria.ge.merit..Please recommend a county moratorium on e.x. istmg .dairy expansions and new dairy until conditional use permits are required, buffer zo.nes, comprehensive regulations and. for violatio.ns are in place and county dairy Dear Bakersfield City Council,.~.~ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory. farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy operatsons with few regulations to insure smm~e management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and pou~ty dairy inspectors Name ' Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on .e.x. isting .dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired2 . located, Factory farmtng Is a whole new scale mana.ge.ment..Please recommend a count, y moratorl.Um~.i:~;~;~!i:: on exlstmg.dmry expansions and new da.lry until conditional use permits are required, buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspeCtOrs have been hired., · ~ ': Sincerely, ~~~k (~~ ". Address It toff o erro pi. " I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factor~ farming is a whole new .scale of dairy operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure management. -Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violative in plac~,.and county dairy inspectors have been l~red~ - Dear Bakersfield City Council, .... I ask that the Bakersfield (~ity Council oppose the. proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming ts a ~vhole new scale of dairy operations with few regula-tions to insure m management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate. buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy, inspectors .'~Deai~iBakersfield City Count41,~ 'I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the.. .=. "' Proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and · - located: Factory fnrmlng Is n whole new' .scale operations with few regulations to insure manage.ment. Please recommend a county moratormm'~?~;~ on ?.istmg ~d. airy expansions and new dairy permitting??~i/'. untd conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations ar/~n place and county dairy inspectors have been hired~ x Name Address ~ David K. Go~d 'OS 11000 Bahia Ct. Bakerslie)d, CA, 9~311 l~ear Bakersfield City Counci~'- ~ I ask that 'the .Ba. kersfield City Council oppose the ~roposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Facto? farming is a wh. ole new scale of dairy bperatnons wnth few regulatnons to insure smsn~~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors Dear Bakersfield City Council,__ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale ofdairy~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zo.nes, ggmprehensive regulations.and penalties for wolatio.ns ~e in ~place/,~d c?unty dairy inspectors have been h,r~x,d_. Sincerely, I/~g~__z~4~, I/_z/~z~l . Address q Z t~ ~ ~4 ,t4o0 ~-~/4~ . / Dear Bakersfield City Council~ -- I ask that-the Bal~ersfi~ld'City Council oppose the propOsed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and 'located.. Factory farming is a-whole new .scale of dairy... operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting'i.i:, until conditional use. permits are required, adeqUate'5??~ buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties..~. for violatio.ns are in place and county dairy inspectors Name Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy ooerations with few regulations to insure n~anagement. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zo.nes, comprehensive re~gulations.and, penalties for wolatio.ns are Ip)place an~ ~pun~y,dairy~nspectors have,b::rnelh'red' fx]O'/~Af ~~ S'ny', tJ"" · - , - --- - Name Address~ -~- oae~ ~.eo~'~ -- Al~ 11000 Bahia Ct. Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dear Bakersfield City Council, ~sk that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of operations with few regulations to insure management. Please. recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hirod'. ...................................................... proposed Borba dmrles as presently sized, designed and located. ~ctory farming is a whole new scale of~ operations with few regulations to inSUre management. Please recommend a county moratorifi~' on existing.9?ry ~pansions and new dairy per~]~g_ until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and Pen~lti~s' for violations are in place and county dairy inspectorS.. have been hired.~ Sincerely, Name 1 Address ~{0~ ~e ~ ~ { ~ " Dear Bakersfield City Council, .... I ask that the' .Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming-is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county~dairy inspectors Sincerely, ~.....~ ... Name ~-~'~"~- ~'~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy. operations with few regulations to insure~la~,~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are.in place an~! county dairy inspectors been h,red.// ,. · Dear Bakersfield City CoUncil, ~I ask that the Bakersfield City Council o~ppose the proposed Borba dairies as~resently-sized, designed and located.. Factory. farming is a wh. oleaew_s~cale of da~3~ operatsons With few regulatlons-to4nSure'~ management. Please recommend ~'coiintymorat~iqu~_~: on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use' permits are required, adequate buffe, r zo.nes, comprehensive regulations.and penalties for vaolat~o.ns are~n pl ~lce j%nd cqpnty dmry inspectors have been h~r/~d. 5f/~ ~ // Address /ffff ~'- j~ ~f Y~f~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory. farming is a wh. ole new .scale of sd~~ operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure management, Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Sincerely,_ _~,~oI~. " Address ~>~0~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor~ farming is a wh. ole new scale of dairy operations w~th few regulahons to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Name - ~"~ ''a~ Mr. Glenn Sh¢llcross ?~ 5001 Surrey Ln. Address Bakersfield, CA 93309-4744 Dear Bakersfield City Council, ' I ask that the .Bakersfield City Council oppose the prOposed Borba dairies 'as presently sized, designed and · located.. Factor~ farming is a wh. ole new .scale of da~ operations w~th few regulations to insure ~a~re .... management.· Please recommend a county, morat°riu~. on existing dairy expansions, and new dairy 'permitti.~g until conditional use permits are required, adequ_a~e buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are/j~ place and~',o~ ~iry inspectors ba'~ been hl~ed/~.. Since, rely,, Name t~k./-' ' Address Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the prOposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor~ farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy. ~ operations with few regulations to insure ~r~~' management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations,al~kn place and count. Y ~a~ry~inspectors have been hir d~._~- / [ / Address "~ ~p-~ ~/-[ fil~l-tf~T~-~ '~' I as~ that the Bakersfield ~ity ~o~cil oppose the proposed Borha dairies a~ presently M~ed, desi~ed a~d located. ~ctory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure · management. Please recommend a county moratorium · on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensi~ regulations and penalties for violatiogs are m place and county dairy inspectors h~ been hired. ~ - / Dear Bakersfield City Coundl, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presemly sized, desigmd located. ~ctory farming is a w~ole new ~cale of ~d operations with few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy perm~ until conditional use permits are required, ade~-'~''~'~' buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and pen~ities for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors h~ been hi~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ Name~~ ~ {_~ Address ~3~~ ~X~ ~0~ ~. / De~ Bakersfield City Counc~i,-~ .. _~I ask that the Bakersf~d Cit~ Council oppose the - proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy oi~'~rations with few regulatidns to insure ssm~~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zo.nes, compr~h, ensive regulations and. penalties for wolat~o.ns are ~d pl9c~nand county da)ry inspectors have been hired, f///f/ ~'- . ~/f/9 ~'~ Sincerely, _ ~~-/(_ _~'~ ~ Name · · Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the .Ba. kersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dmrms as presently sized, designed and located. Factor. y farming is a whole new scale of~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the ~kersfield City ~ouncil oppose the proposed Borba dmrles as presemly sized, designed .......... located~ .~cto~y farming is a w~ole new scale of da~Y~ _ : .... oper'at~ons with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratori~ .'.' on existing dairy ~panSions and new dairy permit-fi~' ' until' conditional use permits are required, adeqfi'a~e' buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are ~n place and county dairy inspect6rs have been hired. ~~ '" Sincerely, ~~ Name Dear Bakersfield City Council, '~. I ask that the Ba. kersfield City C. ouncil oppose the proposed Borba dairaes as presently sized, desagned and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy, operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in place ~n/! county dairy inspectors have been h~red. ~ ~] Sincerely, , x.~,,,r~,~ t x ~ Address t'"/c:,~/~ /'/or cskoe 0/. Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the . proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory farming is a wh. ole new scale of dairY. operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend, a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. ~ ~ Address Dear Bakersfield City Couneild']~- i ask that the ~kersfield City Council oppoae the. proposed Borba dmrms as presemly sized, designed and located~ ~ctor~ farming is a w~ole new ~cale of operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county moratorlfi~~:: on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy permitti~ .... until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehe~ive regulations and penalties for violations are in pla~ and county dairy inspeCtOis ha~ been hired. ~ Address ~~ &~n b~/~' Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the ~kerSfield City ~ouncil oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed ~d located. ~ctory farming is a whole new ~cale of dairy .. operations with few regulations to ~nsure ~~' management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in pla~ and county dairy inspectors have been hired. . Sincerely, ~~~_~ ~, Name ' ' ~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the .Ba. kersfield City C. ouncil oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently s~zed, designed and located. Factory 'farming is a whole new scale of dairy~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hire~. _ Sincerely, Name ~ ' ......................................... Dear Bakersfield City Council, ':' · I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose'the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Facto? farming is a wh. ole new .scale of d.a~Y~x~ operations w~th few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing..d, airy expansions and new dairy per_m~i_t~ti_~g:L until conditional use permits are required, adequate.~ buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectgrs. have been hired. Sincerely, ~//-~-* · X Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the .Ba. kersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy..~ operations with few regulations to insure ~m~~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in_place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. // Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council 0~ppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor. y farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure sabre management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in place and county dairy ins~~,.rs Address reooh fft I ask that the .9~.kersf~eld City Council oppose the-. '. proposed Borba dames as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory farming is a wh. ole new .scale 'of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recOmmend a county on existing dairy expansions and .new dairy permitti i- until co, nditional use permlt~are reqnired, buff? zones, compre~en~l~ re~ulatlon~ ~nd pen~lfle~ for wolaflon~ are In place and county dairy inepector~ ~.~(:-.~C ...................................... . ~ Dear Bakei~sfield CRy Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presentlY sized, designed and located.. Factory farming is ~a wh. ole new .scale of da/~'y operations with few regulations to insure sallie management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy Permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penaltie~s for violations are in pla.~ce and cougty dairy insp~tors have been hired. ~/J £ - ( ~ · ~ ) Name ' -' ~ '" 7. l~ear Bakersfield City Council, ..... I asl~ that the Bakersfield CitLy Council oppose the : ~ ~opose~ Borba dairies~as presently sized, designed and - located:- Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy..... ' bperaffons with few regulations to insure manage.ment..Please rec.ommend a county moratorium .... on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Sincerely ./~~-~--~ ~ Name .... ' ,?'i '" '-' oPeration's with few reguTat~ons to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium' on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permit~pg" until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties'. for violatio.ns are~p place and county dairy inspector, s have been hired.f~ /~ "~'-).~ /TJ.., ~ "Z" Sincerely~7~ ~j/~~ ' Address ,.~[~/,_,~ ~~hD/gJL/ -' ' i Ii, ear Bakersfi~l'd City CounCil, -' I ask-that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the ' ~roposeff'Borba dairies a~presently sized, designed and ,. located. -Factory farming-is a whole new .scale of dairy Operations With few regulations to ~nsure ~~x management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired/D~ /, ~ ~ ~ar Bake~sfi~id CitY Council, · - I ask_~h~t-the .Ba. kersfield City C. ouncil oppose the ~p~opose~d.Bor~a dalrms as presently sized, designed and -located. ]~actory farming is-a whole new scale of dairx -oOerafi~nE ~ith few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy permitting ~ until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors Address~ // ~f ef //ve C ~ ~ . " ~ar ~kerifield City Cofincil~ · ~ I~sk that the ~kersfield City ~ouncil o~pose the'' proposed Borba dalrms as pr~ently sized, designed located; ~cto~y farming Is .a w~ole new scale of davy_. ~per~ons with few reg~atlons to insure"-~~ management. Please recommend a county moratoriUm's.' on existing,dairy ~pansions and new dairy' until conditional use permits are required, ade~u~te~;:, buffer zones, comprehensi~ regulations and penaltieS" for violations are in.lace and county dairy insPeCtO~'s' Dear Bakersfield City. Council, ~ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the, , proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed located. ~ctory farming is a whole new scale of da~y~ operations with few regulations to insure~~' management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting ~' until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive .regulations and penalties for violations are in pla~ and county dairy inspectors ha~ been hired. Sincerely, Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the .Ba. kersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dmrles as presently sized, designed and located. Factor. y. farming is a whole new .scale of operations with few.regulations to ~nsure management. Plei/~e recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place,and county dairy inspectors have been hi~~~~_ Sincerely, Name ~_occ.~ %A3.~, Dear Bakersfield City Council; I ask that the .Ba. kersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba drones as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor. y farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairyc . operations w~th few" re'gulatlons to ~nsure management. Please recommend a count, y morato, riu:m' ... on existing dairy expansions and new. dmry permitting-' until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive .'regulations and penalties for violatio.ns are in place_and county dairy inspectors have been h,re .~ I I'~' /~ ~.0_ ' fl ~C~' - Sincerely, ~ Name ~LI~ (~)., Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the' proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure sa~ag management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regUlations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. ~) · Sincerely, - ,,_ - l~ear t~aKersnem ~zy ~..ounCll, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure same management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hir~d.~ //~..',/~, o /~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Sincerely, ~ V/~~~ ~ Dear B~ersfield-~~fl, I ask that the ~akersfield City ~ouncil oppose the proposed Borba dairies as gresently sized, designed and located. ~ctory far~i~{~'a Whble new scale of'dairy~ operations with f~~:Ulation'~ t0-'insur6'~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium' '. --:on existing dairy ~pansionS and ~ne~ dairy permitting' until conditional use permits are:required, adequate-~ buffer zones, comprehensive regUlatiOns and penalties. for violations are in pla~ and county dairy inspectoPs ha~ been hired. ': Sincerely, ~ ~~ Name ~~ g Address ~ ~ ~~.0~ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council 'oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy. operations with few regulations to insure ~o~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comp~-ehensive),pgulations and. penalties violations for . are ih placer~?t~l county dairy inspectors. ha~beenh,red. / 1/(_~ ' Name ~~0/~~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy - '. oper~.tions with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adeqUate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties · for wolations are m place and county dairy inspectors have been hired.. -- -':~ ~ear Bakersfield ~ity Coundl, . ,.~. I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba ~iries as Prpsently sized, designed and · located~ ~ctory ffarming is. a whole new scale of d~icyA operations with few regulations to insure mana?~ent. ~lease rec?mmend a county· on ~stmg.dmry expansmns and new dairy until conditional use permits are required, adequate??.' buffer zones, comprehensive regulations snd penalties '"~¥ for violations are in place and county dairy inspectOrs":: ha~ been hired. ~ ' Address q~O0 ~ l,~ C~. Dear Ba. kersfield City Councl~ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose 'the proposed Borba dairies as pr~esently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permit buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Name Dear ]~akersfield City Council, ][ ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new .scale of dairy operations with few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zo.nes, comprehensive regulations and. penalties for violations are in place and county dairy respecters have been hired. ~-~ f'~ Sincerely, ~ Address " Dear Bakersfield City Council;' 'I ask ·that'the Bakersfield City Council oppose the ........... proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and ~i.~_~.'... located'/Faiit0~y farming is a wh. ole new scale of~ ........ 'i operat~0nS.-~.~th few regulations to insure · management.. Please recommend a cOunty moratorium on e.x. isting dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired.z~ ~ Sincerely, ~_~,~ / ~ff~ ' o Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor. y farming is a wh. ole new .scale of dairy' · operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure ~$~'~¢ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place~and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Sincerely, Name ~'10. ~ ~ g. Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy · operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommeiid a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Address Z~ ~ 0 q ~ ~~ ~ I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose .the. pro~d Borba dairies as presently sized, designed a~ :~?~.. of dai~ located: ~ctory farming is a whole new scale lal~y~ operations with few regulations to insure~'a management. Please recommend a county moratorifi~?~ on existing dairy ~pansionl and new dairy permit~::~ until conditional use permits are required, adeqfi~[e:~ buffer zones, comprehensi~ regulations and penalties":~ for violations are in place and county dairy insPec[~" · I ~k th~t:.the ~ker~field City Council opoo~e oroposed Borba d~irie~ a~ ore~ently iized, delig~d I~ located.~ ~t~ry f~rmlng IS~ whole new ~le of ~ oper~tio~ ,with few regul~tio~ to in~ure management, Please recommend a county moratorium o~ e[i~ting d~iry ~O~ion~ ~nd ~ew d~iry oermlttl~[ until ~o~ditio~! u~e oermit~ ~re required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regul~tlo~ ~d for viol~tion~ ~re in place and ~ounty dairy ln~pe~tor~ h~e been hired. / 1 Sincerely, Name Address 3 ~ ~ g.%,~ ~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the BakerSfield City Council o.ppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farmln~ is a whole new scale of ~am~ operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on e.x. isting.~d, airy expansions and new dairy permitting -untd cond!honal use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. /) ~ r~ I ask that the ~kersfield City ~ouncil o.ppose the proposed Borba dmrles as 'Presently s~zed, desl~d and locate~]] ~ctor~ farmifi~'is~'~ole new scale of dhir~ operations w~th feW.-regul~t~ons t0 insure-. managements, Please recommend a coun~ moratori6m on e~isting~dairy ~pansions and new dairY Pe~itti~g' untd conditional use p~its are r~quired, adeqU'kte buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors h~ been hired. Sincerely, ~ Name ............ : .'- ~ Mr. Gle~ Shellcross ~ 5001 Su~ey Ln. Address ~Bakersfield, CA 93309-4744 Dear'Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factory. farming is a wh. ole new scale of dairy . operations w~th few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hire~../ Address [[/~ G' /~ / /q~ ~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new .scale of operations with few regulations to ~nsure management. Please recommend a county moratorium .... on' existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are i~ 01atce .and county dairy inspectors Sincerely, Name . ~ I ask that the Bakersf~ld City Council oppose the '--'.' pro~sed Borba dairies as presemly sized, designed and :~} located. ~ctory farming is a whole new scale of operations with few regulations to insure management~* Please recommend a coumy on existing dairy ~pans~ons and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required,-adeqU~!e~ buffer zoges, comprehensi~ regulations and for violations are m place and county dairy lnspeCtb~S"~f//~ Dear Bakersfield City Cou~l, I th,t the kersne d cay ouncn oppose the proposed Borba dmrms as presen~y s~zed, designed and locate'd. ~ctory farming is a w~ole new ~cale of dairy_ operations with' few regulations to ~nsure ~~ management. Please recommend a coun~ moratorium on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, eom ~rehensive regulations and penalties for violatiogs are ~ ,place ~nd c~unty dairy inspectors h~ been h~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield CitY Council oppose the prOposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located; Factory farming is a whole new scale of daily operations with few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional.use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. . Sincerely, [~. ~'~~~ Name ~Af ~ ~\~ Address O~Ocr~ t~.e~ ~er~ r~ Dear BakersfieM CRy Coun~l, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, demg~d a~ located. ~ctory farming is a whole new scale of da~ operations with few regulations to insure .~ management.- Please recpmmend a county morK~i~' on ex~stmg dairy expansmns and new dairy pe~i~ until conditional use permits are required, .adeq~Kt~ buffer zones, comprehensi~ regulations and Penalties for violations are in place~nd county dairy inspeC~6rs h~ been h~red.~ ~.. ~ ./ - Dear Bakersfield City Council, 'I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new .scale of operations with few regulations to ~nsure smm~'~- management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired.. /~_ Sincerely, '~*~/~~ Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located.. Factor. y farming is a wh. ole new .scale of operations w. lth few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations and penalties for violations are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Address r.-/' t) / ~ t'~ //).f,~// /~ ~ t lc e., F--- Dear Bakersfield City Council, ''": '" " r:'" I ask that the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and..: located.. Factor. y farming is a wh. ole new .scale of ..... ~... operations w~th few regulations to ~nsure ~ management. Please recommend a County on e.x. isting, dairy expansions and new dairy until conditional use permits are required, adeq'~i'ate ::.. buffer zones, comprehensive regulatio-ns and penalties?'' for violations are in place and county dairy inspeCt0i'rs' i'~: - have been hired. ~ ~ )., /~- -' Name ~, /t/] ~~- ~ '-' ' . Dear Bakersfield City Council, I ask that~the Bakersfield City Council oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and located. Factory farming is a whole new scale of dairy operations With few regulations to insure management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy expansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buffer zo.nes, comprehensive regulations and. penalties for wolatlons are in place and county dairy inspectors have been hired. Name Address Lleltr ttaKersliel(l ~ity ~ouncIl, I ask that the Bakersfield City (~ouncil oppose the proposed Borba dairies as presently sized, designed and .- locnted~ ~ctory farming is n whole ~ew scale of dni~y ~ operatsons with few regulation~to insure ~ management. Please recommend a county moratorium on existing dairy ~pansions and new dairy permitting until conditional use permits are required, adequate buff? zones, comprehen~ regulatio~ and penalties for wolations ~ sg.plac~and~nt~dairy inspectors Dear Bakersfield City C°un~ - ~. I ask that the ~akersfield City Council oppo~e the proposed Borba dairies as present]~ sized, designed and operations w~th few regulations to insure management, ylease recommend a county moratOr~"~:- on existing dairy ~pansmns and new dairy pemit~i~ until conditional use permits are required, 'adeqUate buffer zones, comprehensive regulations arid pen~lti~s~' for violations are in place and county dairy inspectO~ have been hired. , -- "'"' Sincerely, Dear Bakersfield City C~,il, I a~ that the Ba~r~field Cit~ Conncil oppose the proposed Borba dairle~ a~ pre~ent!y ~ized, designed located.~ ~etory farming is a whole new scale of ~t operations with few reg~lation~ to in~nre management. Please recommend a connty moratorinm on exbting dairy' expan~ion~ and new dairy permitting until ~onditional u~e permit~ are required, adeqnate buffer zones, comprehensive regnlstion~ and penaltie~ for violation~ are in place and county dairy in~peetor~ h~ been hired.~ Excerpted Project Information BORBA DAIRY PROJECT Kern County, CA The information included in this handout was excerpted from the Environmental Impact Report and Draft Findings of Fact prepared for the Borba Dairy Project. PROJECT LOCATION The project site consists of 4,677 acres located several miles southwest of Bakersfield in an unincorporated area of west-central Kern County. The site is bounded to the north by Taft Highway (SR 119), to the northwest by the Buena Vista Canal and agricultural fields, to the southwest by Interstate 5 (I-5), to the east by the Stine Canal and agricultural fields, and to the south by agricultural fields. The site includes thirty-three separate parcels (184-070-14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37; 184-090-21; 184-100-13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; and 184-110-32). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes the development of an integrated dairy operation consisting of two modem "freestall" daides and supporting agricultural crop production. The project would include two dairies of similar design and size located adjacent to one another in the central portion of the project site. Each dairy would occupy approximately 341 acres and would consist of a central dairy barn, large freestall bams for milking cows, corrals with shade covers for support stock, manure separation pits and wastewater ponds, feed storage fadlities, and assorted support buildings. Three to five residences would be constructed at each of the daides. Agricultural use would continue on the remaining land at the site (3,995 acres), producing feed crop for the dairy cattle. Dairy 1 (James Borba) would be located in the westem portion of the project site, specifically the northem half of Section 10. Dairy 2 (George Borba) would be located in the eastern portion of the project site, specifically in the southern half of Section 2 and northern portion of Section 11. Each dairy operation would cover approximately 341 acres; the remainder of the site would be devoted to agricultural crop production. The daides would each support approximately 7,200 dairy cows and related stock; the related stock includes 3,264 dry cows and bred heifers, 1,092 heifers, and 2,730 calves. Each dairy would, therefore, support approximately 14,286 cattle for a total of 28,572 cattle at the Project site. The milking cows would be housed in covered freestall bams located adjacent to a central milking barn. Each milking cow is provided an individual stall with a bed in the freestyle barn. The cows generally stay in the stalls except when they are walked to the milking bam on concrete lanes two times a day. The floors of the freestalls are concrete with the exception of stall areas designated for cows to rest. The floors are sloped toward a central feeding ~lane~ running the length of each barn. Support stock would be kept in unpaved, shaded corrals located within each dairy complex. Approximately 80 percent of the forage feed (primarily corn, oats, and alfalfa) for the cattle would be produced on agricultural land within the project site. The remainder of the forage feed and feed concentrate would be imported to the site from outside sources. The feed would be stored within each dairy complex in bams (hay) and on concrete pads (silage). 2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The applicants for the proposed project currently operate daides in the Chino Basin area of San Bemardino County, California. The applicants are interested in expanding their operations by developing more modem and efficient daides to meet the existing and expected future market for dairy products. Current trends in dairy management promote an increase in herd size to maximize milk production efficiency and consolidate dairy waste management facilities. Given the potential land use conflicts between daides or other large livestock confinement fadlities and other land uses, the applicants have also attempted to identify a suitable site that could maintain appropriate buffers from existing or planned uses that could be incompatible with dairy operations. In addition, the applicants need a large site capable of producing feed for the dairy cattle and providing sufficient area for safe use of manure and dairy wastewater as fertilizer. The 4,677-acre project site generally meets the needs of the applicants. The applicants' objectives for the proposed project are: Promote continued agricultural use of the project site; Use land available to and under the control of the applicants to relocate existing dairy operations from San Bemardino County; Develop a modem dairy facility capable of supporting 14,400 milking cows with support stock at a site located within approximately 90 miles of the center of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, the major regional dairy product consumption center; Promote environmentally sound and productive on-site use of dairy waste through ~rural recycling~ of manure and wastewater; Enter into Williamson Act contracts for all eligible portions of the project site to ensure long- term retention of agricultural lands; Provide full-time employment opportunities for agricultural workers in Kem County. PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES The EIR identifies 19 distinct mitigation measures, many of which have several component requirements. These measures would full mitigate all impacts of the dairies except some of the air quality impacts. Air quality impacts on a project basis can not be fully mitigated because the region is already in "non-attainment" for certain air quality impacts. ~'' It is proposed that all the mitigation measures except one (anerobic digestors) become conditions of approval of the project, as well as other conditions being proposed by the staff and Planning Commission. 3 PROJECT BENEFITS The proposed project will create the following benet'rts for the County of Kern and County residents (in no relative order): Development of a modem and efficient dairy operation that will meet the existing, and expected future, market for dairy products. Development of an integrated, state-of-the-art, free-stall dairy operation including roofed barns, individual stalls for milk cattle, and concrete flush lanes for animal waste. Development of a fully self-contained dairy operation utilizing rural recycling, such that all waste products are recycled onto cropland used for growing feed to support the dairy. Maximize milk production efficiency and consolidate dairy waste management facilities. Discretionary approval and control over one integrated dairy operation which ensures ultimate authority for the imPletnentation and enforcement of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Operation of integrated dairy facilities subject to mandatory environmental controls, identified after a full public disclosure process and a thorough environmental review process utilizing the first EIR in California to be prepared for a dairy project. Retention of California market share within the dairy industry, in the face of competition from other states, notably Adzona. Economic development in the form of capture of the transitioning dairy market from the Chino area of Southern California to Kern County and the Central Valley. Creation of 68 full-time jobs. 5r- Generation of direct and indirect economic benefit to the County and region in excess of $170 million annually ([14,400 cows x 65 lbs/day x 365 days/year] x [$12.50 per 100 lbs]). 2,- Generation of part-time and/or permanent limited pedod employment opportunities associated with the dairy construction, implementation of mitigation measures, required monitoring and reporting, construction of associated improvements, agriculture operations, veterinarian car,e, and other ongoing operations. These jobs and the local purchase of materials will t~ave a multiplier effect in the community and region as those salaries and purchases recirculate through the economy. Generation of property and sales tax revenues. Utilization of 4,677 acres of marginal soils for highest and best agricultural use as a productive, well managed dairy operation. ~- Participation, as determined to be appropriate, in the Countywide Habitat ConservatiOn. 4 Program or negotiation directly with the USFWS and CDFG. Placement of 4,677 acres into the VVilliamson Act agricultural protection program. Full participation in mandatory monitoring programs. ~-- Full mitigation for water quality impacts. Full mitigation for odor impacts. Full mitigation for habitat mitigations. Greatest feasible mitigation for air quality impacts. ~-- Implementation of a water quality testing program which will contribute to a countywide water quality database. Protection of areas of cultural resources sensitivity. Avoidance of growth inducing impacts associated with planned, approved urban growth. Maintenance of a minimum one mile buffer from all adjoining land uses In addition, the following benet'C~s would occur, related solely to elimination of the approved Pacificana Specific Plan: ~-- Retention of 4,325 acres (Pacificana Specific Plan) in agricultural use, that would have been converted to urban uses. Rescission of the 1994 Pacificana Specific Plan mixed use development thus avoiding the construction of 19,000 dwelling units, 811 acres of commercial and industrial uses, and 1,376 acres of other uses. ~-- Dramatically improved noise environment (traffic and other urban sources), as compared to planned development under the Par.,ificana approval. ~ Net improvement in air quality impacts for vehicle exhaust emissions (ROG and NOX) as compared to planned development under the Pacificana approval as follows: -ROG: 104 tons per year (312 -208) -NOX: 2,115 tons per year (2,119 - 3.8) Net improvement in PM 10 emissions for all sources at build-out of 148 tons per year (374 - [451 x 50%]) or better, as compared to development under the Pacificana plan, conservatively assuming a minimum of 50 percent effectiveness of dust suppressants required as mitigation. 5 Water demand for only 2,500 acre-feet per year as compared to water demand for 22,300 acre-feet per year under the Pacificana approval (a 900 percent improvement). Improved recharge to the underlying aquifer due to greatly decreased impervious surface cover, as compared to substantially decreased surface water infiltration and groundwater recharge under the Pacificana approval. Preservation of 3,643 acres (4,325 ac - 682 ac) of habitat that would have been lost to development under the Pacificana approval. Using the County Habitat Conservation Plan per-acre habitat fee of $1,250, that represents $4.55 million dollars in habitat value. Elimination of substantially increased light and glare associated with urban growth that would have accompanied development under the approved Pacificana plan. Preservation of virtually unlimited feasible access to oil and gas resources, as compared to significant loss of access under the Pacificana development. Elimination of 211,890 new daily vehicle tdps (212,090 - 200) associated with build-out of the Pacificana plan. Avoidance of the provision of services, utilities, and infrastructure associated with 54,000 new residents within the Pacificana plan boundaries. PROJECT CHANGES TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS Changes or alterations have been made in the Borba project which mitigate to the most feasible degree the significant environmental effects of the project, as identified in the Final EIR. These include the following: A-- As a part of the applicant's proposal, the dairy will be constructed using a "freestall" rather than open corral design. As a part of the proposed design, the area of open corrals is significantly smaller than under an open corral design, thereby decreasing the potential for dust generation. Manure removal under the proposed system is via a water flushing system, rather than tractor scraping which also decreases dust production. By design, manure management with the proposed fadlities would be more efficient resulting in less odor potential than under an open corral design. Increased paving under the proposed design decreases the potential for infiltration of concentrated waste water as compared to open dirt corrals. Both daides have been specifically sited to balance to the greatest feasibility degree compatibility issues relating to proximity to adjoining non-dairy land uses. A-- The applicants have acquired additional adjoining land to ensure enough acreage for nitrogen and salt-loading associated with on-site recycling of calculated animal waste. As part of the applicant's proposal, the Pacificana Specific Plan would be fully rescinded, thus precluding conversion of the property to a "new town". Both daides will be subject to Conditional Use permits, and an additional discretionary site review zoning overlay will be applied by the County to the dairy facilities portion of the site. The applicants will re-enter the entire project acreage into Williamson Act contracts. The EIR requires modification to the Dairy 2 boundaries to ensure a minimum distance of one mile from sensitive receptors. Operations will be subject to additional permits and oversight by the following regulatory agencies: Kem County Mosquito and Vector Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, Kern County Planning Department, Kern County Roads Department, Kern County Fire Prevention, Kern County Department of Engineering and Survey Services, Kern County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Department of Food and Agriculture, California Department of Water Resources, the State Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Caltrans. The applicant will be required to prepare and fully implement the following operational plans: Odor Management Plan (MM 4.2.3.5), Livestock Management Plan (MM 4.2.3.10), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (MM 4.3.3.1), Integrated Pest Management Plan (MM 4.9.3.3). Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5 (Odor Management Plan) identifies 10 performance standards for the Odor Management Plan related to manure treatment and application and two additional general performance standards, with which compliance will ensure acceptable mitigation (to a less-than-significant level) of the potential for adverse odor from project operations. The Measure also specifies that review and approval by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department and the California Department of Food and Agriculture are required, which serves to integrate the performance standards of those agencies as well into the mitigation requirement. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of less-than-significant residual impact is based. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.10 (Livestock Management Plan) identifies four minimum informational requirements of the Livestock Management Plan and identifies the performance standards of the federal Environmental Protection Agency's Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (incorporated by reference into the EIR), with which compliance will ensure maximum feasible mitigation of cumulative methane emissions from project operations. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of maximum feasible mitigation is based. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.1 (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)identifies 3 performance standards for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, including the requirements of the state Regional Water Quality Control Board (incorporated by reference into the EIR), with which compliance will ensure acceptable mitigation (to a less-than-significant level) of the potential for surface and groundwater quality degradation from project operations. The Measure also specifies that review and approval by the Kern County Department 'of Engineering and Survey Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board are required. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of less-than-significant residual impact is based. Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.3.(Integrated Pest Management Plan) 5 performance standards for the Integrated Pest Management Plan including operational practices, biological controls, and chemicals, with which compliance will ensure acceptable mitigation (to a less-than- significant level) of the potential for increased vector activity. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of less-than-significant residual impact is based. The applicant will undertake a Water Quality Testing Program (MM 5.1.3). In addition, every identified mitigation measure in the EIR has been proposed for adoption by the staff and Planning Commission as a condition on the approval of the project with the exception of Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.6 (Anaerobic Digester). Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.6 reads as follows: The project shall provide for an anaerobic digester treatment of the manure to stabilize the manure generated by the cattle prior to land applica§on. The digester system shall be designed to minimize the release of biogases through the conversion of gases to electrical power or other appropriate methods. The staff and Planning Commission, based on the information in the record as summarized below, have recommended rejection of this mitigation measure as infeasible: Economic Factors - The applicant would be put at a competitive disadvantage due to the cost of the first EIR prepared in the State for a dairyl the costs of other adopted mitigation measures in the EIR, the cost of environmentally preferred freestall type dairy design versus open corral design, and the costs of the digester technology in and of itself. The estimate of $7.93 million for digesters to serve the proposed facility would add $570 per cow on top of the other listed expenditures ($2,000 per cow if required in the first four years). The applicants have stated in the record that they are not able to feasible operate under these burdens. The October 14, 1999. letter from Dr. John Fleming of Mead and Hunt Engineers, and the October 14, 1999 letter from Executive Vice President Jay Goold of the Western United Dairymen specifically elaborate on the issue of financial infeasibility. The October 20, 1999 letter from the applicants specifically elaborates on concerns regarding competitive restraints imposed by this measure. Technological Factors - The use of digesters is not common in the dairy industry. Known examples of attempts to integrate this technology have been discontinued due to infeasibility. The technology is experimental and remains operationally infeasible until put into wide-spread use with standard specifications and design. Furthermore, there is no experience in the Amedcan dairy industry with an anaerobic digester of the size or capacity that would be needed for this project. The applicant's letter as well as the October 21, 1999 letter from Dr. Deanne Meyer of the University of California at Davis address the issue of technical and operational infeasibility. Additionally, a requested change to move Dairy 2 further south was rejected by the Planning Commission for the following reasons: ~-- The dairy was already required to be relocated per Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5a to ensure a one mile minimum buffer from all sensitive users. ~ Relocation to the south would result in increased potential for impact to Lakeview School by bdnging the dairy closer to the school.' Relocation to the south would move the operations into an area of potential cultural resource sensitivity. 9 A Word About What Do Parking Structures Cost? Monster SUV's This is one of the first ques- express ramps will result in a high- Geographical location - costs tions clients ask. Before we can er area per space than one with vary considerably by geographic respond, we need to know the sloping parking ramps. A two-bay region. answers to the following: How structure with a double-helix con- Number of levels - taller struc- many spaces do you need? How ~ tures have a higher average cost many levels? What size is the site? ~ per square foot because elevated The answers have a major impact levels are more costly than the by Charles M. Boldon on the cost per space figure for a ground level. particular parking structure. Shape of site - the length of Over the past few months, Cost per space is dependent on exterior facade per square foot of we have been contacted by The two factors: (1) area per space and area is greater on small sites than New York 77mes, The Los (2) cost per square foot. Two-Bay Double Helix on large sites and greater on long, Angeles 77mes, The Daily News AREA PER SPACE is affected narrow sites than on square sites, and KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, all by several factors: figuration will have a lower area resulting in higher costs. wanting to know what we are Type of user - retail customer per space than a two-bay structure Topography - sloping sites usu- doing about the proliferation of parking requires more generous with an end-to-end loop configura- ally result in expensive retaining monster SUV's. parking dimensions than office tion. .. · .' :. :: .,..; · ~ wall~.... ..:...'..'i: .: ..' Since they were all interest- empl.oyee parking, hence a higher · ' ' "': ~ .... Poor soil Con'ditions res'ult in ed in grabbing the interest ofthe area per space. ~ ' higher foundation costs. :: . . public with alarming news, they Width of site - a narrow site ~ High-level exterior architectur- didn't really want to hear that may dictate a shallow angle of al treatment - increases costs sig- most SUV's are mid-size vehi- parking which results in a higher nificantly. cles, and the biggest ones, like area per space than steeper The following table indicates the Suburban, represent only angles or ninety-degree parking, typical costs for above-grade park- about one percent of total vehi- City parking requirements - . lng structures in Southern cie sales, some cities require wider spaces Two-Bay End-to-End Loop California. However, the average size and aisles than others, no matter Shape of site - irregular shapes Current costs for below-grade car has been steadily growing who the user is, resulting in a high- create wasted areas within the structures will be in the next issue, over the years. The median er area per space, parking structure, or visit our website at: vehicle size ten years ago was Type of flow system- a level- COST PER SQUARE FOOT is www. ipd-global.com about 15' long and about 5'-8" floor structure with connecting affected by these factors: wide. Now the median is about 15'-10" long and 5'-11"wide. Ten years ago, the vehicle Typical Construction Costs per Space for Above-Grade Parking size representing the 85th per- centile, used as the "design vehi- cie," was about 16'-0' long and 6- Small Site Medium Site Large Site 0" wide. Now this vehicle is 17'- 30,000 s.f. 60,000 s.f. 90,000 s. f. 8"long and 6'-8"wide. This vehi- Customer Employee Customer Employee Customer Employee cie still fits comfortably into a typical full-size space of 18'-0" Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking long and 8'-6" wide, but the trend 350 320 325 300 315 290 clearly indicates that there are fewer cars that will fit in the s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car smallest compact spaces of 15'- Surface Parking $1,838 $1,680 $1,706 $1,575 $1,654 $1,523 0" long and 7'-6" wide. This is why many cities are Ground + 1 Level $7,258 $6,636 $6,143 $5,670 $5,705 $5,253 adopting a "one size fits all' parking standard, based on 8'-6", Ground + 2 Levels $8,085 $7,392 $6,768 $6,248 $6,284 $5,786 or even 8'-4" wide with overall parking-bay widths somewhat Ground + 3 Levels $8,407 $7,686 $6,996 $6,458 $6,491 $5,976 reduced from full-size spaces. This is a reasonable approach, Ground + 4 Levels $8,747 $7,997 $7,269 $6,710 $6,747 $6,212 since newer cars have tighter Ground + 5 Levels $8,973 $8,204 $7,451 $6,878 $6,918 $6,369 turning radii and are more maneuverable than older cars. Ground + 6 Levels $9,135 $8,352 $7,581 $6,998 $7,040 $6,482 The cities of Santa Aha, Anaheim, 61endale and San Ground + 7 Levels $9,256 $8,463 $7,678 $7,088 $7,132 $6,566 Diego have adopted the "one size fits all" standard. We hope Ground + 8 Levels $9,351 $8,549 $7,754 $7,158 $7,203 $6,631 all cities will follow suit. Assumes rectangular site, 120' minimum site width, good soil conditions, quali~ finishes. Free Right Turns At Arterial Intersections · Free Right Turns are unrestricted or uncontrolled right turns at intersections and separated from other traffic movements. · They are primarily used at uncontrolled intersections or at stop sign controlled intersections. An example still in use in Bakersfield is at Mount Vernon and Panorama, a multiway stop control. Others that used to exist in town have been eliminated when traffic signals were installed to provide pedestrian protection. · No pedestrian protection is present with a Free Right Turn configuration. Pedestrians must cross only when an adequate gap in traffic is available or all pedestrian crossings should be prohibited for safety if this is not possible. · The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices recommends that pedestrian signals be provided at signalized intersections. This is not possible while still maintaining a Free Right Turn configuration. · To meet handicap ramp standards of the State for ADA compliance, an island with pedestrian refuge area and ramps would be built if pedestrians were allowed to cross the Free Right Turn area. Additional right of way along the adjacent property would be required to fit in the island refuge. · To meet truck turning radius designs, a Free Right Turn corner must be enlarged from a standard radius. This allows the trucks to not conflict with through traffic. · With a larger radius, a merging'lane is needed to allow the Free Right Turn traffic to merge with the through traffic lanes since there will be no control for the right turn traffic. Additional right of way along the merging lane would be required from the adjacent property. · A merging area must be kept clear of driveways to prevent traffic conflicts with the right turn traffic and traffic wanting to enter a driveway. This can be done by restricting access points for a distance away from the intersection. The distance would depend on the design speed of the street. Arterial streets are 55 mph or greater per the Vehicle Code. · Other methods of enhancing the efficiency of a right turn are possible that would not adversely affect pedestrian crossing or require additional right of way acquisition. The U-turns could be prohibited and the right turn signalized to allow turns when the non- conflicting left turn is in use. Examples of this operation are at Mohawk and Truxtun and at Mohawk and California intersections. · Two right turn lanes instead of one could be used with a signal indication. This will still allow pedestrian crossings to be safely protected while increasing the efficiency. The downside is that some additional right of way at the corner would be needed, but no merging lane or access restrictions. SUMMARY: Free right turns are not recommended where pedestrian traffic is expected or cannot be accommodated by other means. Other methods of signal operation and use of additiona~ ~anes are available that still protect the pedestrian and reqUire much less property right of way to implement. slw: January 31, 2000 ........................ 7 ................ I I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~'°'":~" EXPA ................. "--'-- David R. Couch Second Vice President-Investments Financial Consultant SALOMON SMITH BARNEY 661_3~7_9141 800-421-2171 A member of c~t~group"~ SALOMON SMITH BARNEY iNC. 5000 California Ave., Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711 Fax 661-327-9417 From: Amber Lawrence To: John W. Stinson Date: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 12:00 PM Subject: Urban Development Committee David Couch would like you to add the following person to the mailing list to receive all agendas and packets: Pam Pecarish 1508 Parkpath Way 93312 665-9600 He would like you to call her to confirm this is what she wants. CC: Jean Parks BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM September 15, 2000 TO: Development Streamlining Task Force Members FROM: John W. Stinso~, A~ssistant City Manager SUBJECT: Draft ,Report Attached please find the draft report for the Development Streamlining Task Force. It includes background on each of the issues discussed by the task force and recommendations. The Task Force has met and is recommending this draft report be considered by the Urban Development Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council for implementation and approval. cc. Alan Tandy, City Manager S:LIOHN~rafi Streamlining Report Transmittal.wpd City of Bakersfield Development Streamlining Task Force Draft Report Presented to the Urban Development Committee September 2000 Table Contents Executive Summary .......................................................... 1 Participant List .............................................................. 5 Planning .................................................................... 6 1.01 Review of proposed ordinance relating to appeal filings for subdivision maps and extensions of time to the City Council ....................... 7 1.02 Policy regarding restricting input at Planning Commission meetings at extension of time for Tentative Maps ................................ 9 1.03 Requirement for creating a maintenance district when filing a Tentative Map ........................................................... 10 1.04 Policy requiring maintenance districts for minor property divisions. 1.05 Lengths of time for Approved Tentative Maps and Extensions of Time. 1.06 Allowing a change to the Conditions of Approval without re-submitting a revised Tentative Map ............................................ 13 1.07 Eliminate the requirement of appraisal for park fees .................. 14 1.08 Review requirement for archaeology study on land that has been farmed or previously graded ............................................. 15 1.09 Minor subdivision ordinance changes proposed by staff and approved by Planning Commission ............................................ 16 Public Works ............................................................... 17 2.01 Policy regarding phasing of Tentative Map, and requiring money to be placed in escrow for later construction in later phases of the map ...... 18 2.02 Policy to file appeal with City Council on appeal filed by public to City Council ......................................................... 20 2.03 Policy letter dated 1/11/99 regarding trench backfill and compaction requirements .................................................... 21 2.04 Policy that a lot line adjustment map cannot delete existing lot lines .... 22 2.05 Allow reverse horizontal curves without a tangent line between curves. ............................................................... 3 2.06 Various policies that contradict ordinances .......................... 24 2.07 Allow a "variance" procedure to ordinances similar to Kern County system ......................................................... 25 2.08 Policy that will prohibit a developer from connecting a sewer lateral to a trunk sewer line (12" diameter or larger.) ........................... 26 2.09 Policy that requires right turn deceleration lanes on arterials .......... 27 2.10 Proposed policy requiring P.V.C. lined sewer manholes .............. 28 2.11 Allow CELSOC to review and discuss proposed subdivision standard revisions ........................................................ 29 2.12 Sewer lift station design policies - inconsistencies within City staff on requirements for station design ................................... 30 2.13 Allow to design to 300' rad. Curve in local streets .................... 31 2.14 Standardize InsuranCe Certificate requirements ...................... 32 2.15 Establish a standard for minimum slopes on PVC sewer lines .......... 33 2.16 Allow Parcel Map Waivers where site will be developed through additional review process (To provide for phased tract maps) ......... 34 2.17 Eliminate Street Monumentation at phase boundaries ................ 35 2.18 Use of cross-gutters instead of siphons. Siphons usually initiate response from City to extend storm drain ................................... 36 2.19 Traffic Department does not allow 4-way intersections within subdivisions .................................................... 37 2.20 Extension of Vested Rights ........................................ 38 2.21 Graded Roads with gravel base - regarding off site sewer facilities ..... 39 2.22 Extension of gravel base similar to County standard where there are no curbs or gutters to address edge stresses and improve edge of pavement conditions (City request) .......................................... 40 2.23 Monuments at Parcel Map boundaries .............................. 41 2.24 Encroachment permit streamlining ................................. 42 2.25 Use of non-radial property lines on cul-de-sacs and knuckles .......... 43 2.26 Policy regarding use of USGS vs. City survey benchmarks ............ 44 Appendix .................................................................. 45 Executive Summary The Urban Development Committee of the City Council requested the formation of a task force composed of a broad range of people who have an interest in or are involved and impacted by development processes to review ways to streamline and make the City's development policies and standards more efficient and responsive. Representatives from the following groups were invited to participate: American Institute of Architects Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC) Bakersfield Association of Realtors Building Industry of Kern County Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Kern County Contractors Association Kern County Resource Management Agency Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County Sierra Club In addition to these groups other participants attended the meetings of the Task Force and are included in the participant list. The objective of this task force was to review current development policies, procedures and standards and identify ways to streamline current processes and simplify regulations without compromising the purpose of the regulations. Further, it was hoped that those involved in the process would develop a greater understanding of the demands, restrictions and requirements that all parties experience. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC) provided a list of issues identified by their members related to the areas of planning and public works which made up the majority of issues reviewed by the task force. In addition, throughout the collaborative process items were added as topics and were discussed by the group. Some items were brought to the group by city staff to solicit industry and public input. The working group has made the attached recommendations and is referring them to the Urban Development Committee for consideration and ultimately they will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval and implementation. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page I Specific recommendations include the following: Proposed Ordinance Changes 1. Amend ordinance regarding appeals for subdivision map approvals and extensions of time. 2. Amend ordinance to allow a covenant not to protest the formation of a maintenance district and allowing payment for the maintenance district formation process to be made prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance. 3. Amend subdivision ordinance to allow an initial 3 year and additional 2 year extension for approved tentative maps. 4. Amend subdivision ordinance to allow for the subdivider of a project of 20 lots or less to request and accept an estimate of the fair market value of park land to be dedicated in lieu of an appraisal for property. 5. Minor subdivision ordinance changes proposed by staff and approved by Planning Commission. 6. Create a lot merger ordinance. 7. Amend subdivision ordinance regarding subdivision map survey requirements for monumentation. 8. Amend ordinance relating to preparation of final parcel maps and surveying requirements. Public Works Design Changes Public Works staff will prepare changes to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying various subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force (Included in Appendix). Changes will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption by resolution. 1. Trench backfill and compaction requirements. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 2 Public Works Design Changes - continued 2. Allowing reverse horizontal curves without a tangent line between curves. 3. Connecting a sewer lateral to a trunk sewer line (12" diameter or larger.) 4. Right turn deceleration lanes on arterials. 5. Proposed policy requiring P.V.C. lined sewer manholes. 6. Allow to design to 300' rad. Curve in local streets. 7. Establish a standard for minimum slopes on PVC sewer lines. 8. Use of cross-gutters instead of siphons. 9. 4-way intersections within subdivisions. 10. Extension of gravel base similar to County standard where there are no curbs or gutters to address edge stresses and improve edge of pavement conditions. 11. Policy regarding use of USGS vs. City survey benchmarks. Other significant recommendations · That required maintenance district formation fees be paid when first plan check is submitted to the City. · Changing the language in the condition requiring an escrow account for subdivision improvements to provide an option to developers to provide for frontage improvements for phased developments, in lieu of an escrow account. · Staff will provide proposed subdivision standards and design manual changes to CELSOC and post them on the Internet for review and comment. · Risk Management has prepared a standardized packet of information and form for required insurance information which will be available in the Development Services and Public Works public counters and on the Internet. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 3 · Policy regarding more design flexibility on the use of non-radial property lines on cul-de-sacs and knuckles. Remaining unresolved items The following items will require further study between staff and the development industry: · Allowing parcel map waivers where site will be developed through additional review process (to provide for phased tract maps). · The extension of vested rights. · Graded roads with gravel base - regarding off site sewer facilities. · Encroachment permit streamlining. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 4 Participant List Steve Anderson, Kern County Contractors Assoc. Carl Moreland, CELSOC Fred Porter, CELSOC Roger McIntosh, Building Industry Association Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club Bryan Batey, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; Fred Porter, Joe .Clark, American Institute of Architects Phil Field, Kern County Builders' Exchange, Inc. John Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County Ted James, Kern County Planning Brian Todd, Building Industry Association Glenn Barnhill, Kern County Planning John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Marian Shaw, City Public Works Carl Hernandez, City Attorney's Office Allen Abe, City Recreation and Parks Florn Core, City Water Resources Stanley Grady, City Planning Jim Shapazian, City Fire Donna Barnes, City Community and Economic Development Charles Webb, City Economic/Community Development Jack LaRochelle, City Public Works Janice Scanlan, Deputy City Attorney Jim Movius, City Planning Pat Hauptman, City Water Resources Scott Manzer, City Risk Management Steve Walker, City Public Works A Technical Committee was identified to review technical engineer issues and make recommendations to the task force. The Committee included Roger McIntosh, Fred Porter, Carl Moreland, Jack Larochelle, Marian Shaw, John Stinson and any other staff required.. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 5 Planning Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 6 Planning: 1.01 Review of proposed ordinance relating to appeal filings for subdivision maps and extensions of time to the City Council. Background: The Task Force discussed the proposed ordinance that was referred from the City Council and the Urban Development Committee. Representatives from the development community stated that they did not see a need for the ordinance, and said the "Notice of Right to Appeal" which currently appears on Planning Commission agendas was sufficient. Staff indicated that the ordinance is designed to clarify the appeal process specifically to require that the nature and basis of the appeal be provided so staff can prepare information for consideration by the Council. It was suggested that the information could be added to the notice which appears on the Planning Commission agenda. Staff responded that would be fine however, it would be important that it also be codified in ordinance form. There were also concerns about having the Development Services Director review all appeals to determine if they were appropriate or not. Development industry representatives said they were uncomfortable with one person having such sweeping authority to deny appeals and that everything should be appealable to the City Council. Staff responded that people were appealing items that could not be considered by Council since they were contrary to state law or city ordinances. This resulted in unnecessary costs and time delays to the appellant and concern by Council members when they were presented with appeals they could not act on by law. Staff suggested that as an alternate to an arbitrary decision by one person, that a criteria could be developed and placed in the ordinance listing those matters which are not appealable, i.e. it was contrary to law, etc. Staff provided a revised draft of the proposed ordinance deleting the language regarding review by the Development Services Director and adding language clarifying that no right of appeal exists where the appellant seeks to appeal any local, state or federal law, and that seeking an appeal of the advisory agency decision on such matters shall be grounds for denying an appeal. There were some concerns expressed regarding the language in the ordinance requiring the use of a form for appeals. Staff drafted a copy of the proposed appeal form for review by the task force and clarified the language to allow for an appeal to be filed without a form if all required information can be provided pursuant to the ordinance. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 7 Staff presented the revised form and ordinance to the Task Force. There were suggestions made to further simplify the form by combining the last two sections into one with the language, "List the actions you are appealing and the basis of your appeal." The Task Force agreed to the proposed ordinance and appeal form. Recommendation: The Task Force is recommending that the ordinance as modified by the Task Force be adopted. (Proposed Ordinance included in Appendix) Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 8 Planning: 1.02 Policy regarding restricting input at Planning Commission meetings at extension of time for Tentative Maps. Background: Concerns were raised regarding the ability of the public to appeal extensions of time requested by a developer. It was stated that there are no appeal rights for the Public Works Department, Planning Department or any member of the public under the Subdivision Map Act. Staff responded that the Subdivision Map Act and due process requirements allow for appeals by these city departments and any member of the public that may be adversely affected by the decision of the Planning Commission. However, staff agreed to consider revising the proposed ordinance language to reflect that state law provides direction in this matter. Also discussed was a concern about language included in staff reports which states, "The subdivider must agree to any change or addition to conditions of approval. If the developer does not agree with the conditions, the map should be denied based upon the finding that unless the conditions are imposed, the project would be injurious to public health, safety and/or general welfare." Development representatives commented that the language appears to be interpreted by some that the developer has to agree to the conditions or else it will be summarily denied without any ability to be heard by the Planning Commission. Staff indicated that was not the intent, and agreed to soften the language of the condition to indicate the Commission is to consider all evidence presented prior to making any determination to grant or deny the subdivider's application. Staff provided draft language (included in Appendix) to be used in staff reports regarding requests for extension of time for a tentative map. It was agreed by the those in attendance that the new language addressed the concerns expressed, and was acceptable. Recommendation: No action required, public has ability to make comments and appeals. Staff will clarify language used in staff reports. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 9 Planning: 1.03 Requirement for creating a maintenance district when filing a Tentative Map. Background: There was a concern expressed pertaining to payment of fees for formation of maintenance districts at the time of tentative map approval. There was discussion that this was too early in the process and that many tentative maps never result in development. Staff explained that they had received complaints when the formation of the districts was required later in the process, when timing was critical. It was suggested that the payment of fees to establish a maintenance district be paid when the first plan check is submitted. This was acceptable to the Task Force members in attendance. This is an administrative policy that can be implemented by staff. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that maintenance district formation fees be paid when first plan check is submitted to the City and has recommended the following policy change: "1.03 Requirement for creating a Maintenance District when filing a Tentative Map. The Bakersfield Municipal Code states as follows: If the formation of a maintenance district is required as a condition of approval of a subdivision map, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the formation of the district, as set forth in Section 3.70.040. All such fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. (Ord. 3557 § 1, 1993) Public Works policy on this item shall be: Maintenance District formation fees will be required ,to be paid with the first plan check of improvement plans for the tentative tract." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 10 Planning: 1.04 Policy requiring maintenance districts for minor property divisions. Background: CELSOC wanted to be able to delay payment of the maintenance district fees until the parcel map waiver records, since so many of the projects underlying the parcel map waivers die, and the developer is out the maintenance district formation cost. Staff will change the ordinance to allow the recordation of a covenant that says that the property owner will not protest the formation (and merging)of the maintenance district, and allow payment for the process to be made prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance. Recommendation: Staff will prepare an ordinance which allows a covenant not to protest the formation of a maintenance district and allowing payment for the maintenance district formation process to be made prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance. (Proposed Ordinance included in Appendix) Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 11 Planning: 1.05 Lengths of time for Approved Tentative Maps and Extensions of Time. Background: The current ordinance provides for an initial period of 2 years with up to 3 years of extensions for a total of 5 years. However, staff explained that due to recent court decisions, the current policy for the life of the tentative maps and extensions of time is an initial 2 year period with two, 2 year extensions and one, 1 year extension for a total of 7 years (which includes 5 years of extension time). Staff indicated there is a need to revise the ordinance to conform with current law. CELSOC representatives expressed concerns that the current policy does not work well with the multi- phased projects they tend to have now and creates unnecessary expense and wasted time for both the developer and city staff. They stated that Kern County policy is for a 3 year initial period with the possibility of an additional 3 year extension for a total of 6 years, and additional years beyond that depending on the status of development and as allowed by the State Map Act. CELSOC representatives proposed an initial 3 year period with an additional 3 year and 2 year extension for a total of 8years (which includes 5 years of extension time). They indicated that this would bring the city more in line with the County policy and would allow more time before extensions would have to be requested. Staff was not opposed to the proposed change since it is similar to current city policy. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends an initial 3 year length of time with an additional 3 year and 2 year extension. This would provide a total of 5 years of extension time. (Proposed Ordinance included in Appendix) Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 12 planning,: 1.06 Allowing a change to the Conditions of Approval without re-submitting a revised Tentative Map. Background: This item was expressed as desirable by CELSOC representatives due to situations in a project that may change from the time original conditions were imposed on a project, i.e required block walls no longer being necessary, etc. The focus was mostly on compliance conditions and there was a legal question posed as to limiting the change of condition as the only thing that would be appealable if a request to the Planning Commission was made to change a specific condition. Both Planning Department and Public Works Department staff indicated they were not opposed to the concept as long as it met legal requirements. Carl Hernandez made a brief presentation explaining City Code Section 16.16.080.G and the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act regarding changes of conditions on a tentative map. He explained that the Map Act allows for staff to make minor changes to conditions provided they are not substantive in nature. However, the final map must be in substantial compliance with the tentative map that was initially approved. Any substantive changes require a revision of the tentative map which would include a public hearing before the Planning Commission and public notice. There was a desire expressed by the development industry that any re-submittal and review of a condition(s) be limited to that condition(s) and not to reopen the entire map for review. Staff explained that was not consistent with the City code or the Subdivision Map Act. It was agreed that minor non-subtantive changes could continue to be worked out with city staff and that substantial changes would follow the process within city code and the Subdivision Map Act. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends continuing to conform with the City Code and continuing to make minor, non-substantive changes to conditions working with staff and pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 13 Planning: 1.07 Eliminate the requirement of appraisal for park fees. Background: There also was discussion on the elimination of the requirement of appraisal for park fees. Staff explained concerns regarding the differing values of land throughout the city which is why appraisals are used. The development representatives indicated that in some cases the cost'of the appraisal exceeds the amount of the fee. Staff agreed that some alternate method which could meet the needs of the city and developers may be possible such as identifying some ways to identify typical land values in certain areas of the city and they will look into alternatives and bring back a proposal to the Task Force. Information was presented by Stan Grady regarding appraisals for park values gathered form a number of tracts from different areas of town. After an initial review of the data by the committee, it was determined that it would be difficult to establish zones for park land valuation purposes. CELSOC's concern was that, for small subdivisions, the developer might spend more on the appraisal than he would on the park fee. The Task Force decided upon setting a size criteria - perhaps 20 lots or smaller - and allowing developers whose subdivisions meet that criteria to have the option to either have the city provide a calculation of the fee or getting his own appraisal. Staff prepared the following language to amend section 15.80.100 of the Municipal Code: "For a project having 20 lots or less, the subdivider may request, and accept an estimate of value prepared by the city. If the subdivider disputes the city's estimate, then the subdivider shall provide an appraisal and shall pay the amount based on the appraisal as set forth in this section. Any costs incurred by the city in determining the estimated value will be added to the in-lieu fee payed by the subdivider." Recommendation: Staff to change ordinance to allow for the subdivider of a project of 20 lots or less to request and accept an estimate of value in lieu of an appraisal for property. (Proposed ordinance included in Appendix) Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 14 Planning: 1.08 Review requirement for archaeology study on land that has been farmed or previously graded. Background: There was discussion regarding the requirement for an archeology study on land that has been farmed or previously graded. Staff indicated that they understood the frustration of the development industry regarding this requirement, however, this is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is not subject to change by the city. Based on this information, no further action is necessary on this item. Recommendation: No further action required. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 15 Planning: 1.09 Minor Subdivision Ordinance Changes Proposed by staff and approved by Planning Commission. Background: City staff initiated minor ordinance revisions in order to bring City ordinances up-to-date with provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. These revisions were forwarded to CELSOC, BIA and other interested individuals. Staff received comments from the various groups and incorporated them into the final draft ordinance which was approved by the Planning Commission Recommendation: Staff recommends the ordinance approved by the planning commission be adopted by the City Council. (Proposed ordinance included in Appendix) Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 16 Public Works Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 17 Public Works: 2.01 Policy regarding phasing of Tentative Map, and requiring money to be placed in escrow for later construction in later phases of the map. Background: Jack LaRochelle made a brief presentation on the phasing of tentative maps and concerns the city has regarding the completion of public improvements when the phased development occurs in such a way that causes the latter phases to bear a larger proportion of the public infrastructure costs and may not be economically viable and thus be significantly delayed or never developed. This has caused the city in some instances to have to construct some improvements to provide needed public infrastructure. There was considerable discussion on this issue and several suggested methods of funding the improvements in a more equitable manner were reviewed. There were concerns expressed regarding conditions for the phasing of projects and the need for infrastructure. Staff indicated that they were interested in alternative ways to address this with the development community in order to provide the required infrastructure. Discussion included putting infrastructure funds into an escrow account based on each phase's proportionate share of the infrastructure costs, allowing the developer to provide a portion of the improvements, and other ideas. Also discussed was possibly adding a phasing condition which would state, "...or each phase will construct its proportionate share of the required improvements..." as another alternate to consider. There were concerns that some properties which are in the latter phase of a development are difficult to develop when they are responsible for a larger share of infrastructure costs for some phased projects under the current system. Staff Provided some proposed language regarding providing an option to developers to provide for frontage improvements for phased developments, in lieu of an escrow account. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends changing the language in the condition to provide an option to developers to provide for frontage improvements for phased developments, in lieu of an escrow account. (Condition language included in appendix) Staff has recommended the following policy change: "2.01 Requirement for balanced phasing of Tentative Tracts Staff will revise the condition language normally used on tracts whose phasing may be out of balance with the required Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 18 improvements as follows: The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced (or is to be balanced) with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefor, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of a final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 19 Public Works: 2.02 Policy to file appeal with City Council on appeal filed by public to City Council. Background: This issue was resolved and removed from review by CELSOC representative. Recommendation: No action required Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 20 Public Works: 2.03 Policy letter dated 1/11/99 regarding trench backfill and compaction requirements. Background: Jack LaRochelle explained the reasons for the change in the standard for trench backfill and compaction. He indicated it was the result of several meetings with utility companies and input from those who regularly perform this work in response to complaints from citizens and Councilmembers. Staff agreed to consider relaxing this requirement in cases where the sewer slopes are greater than the minimum. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare a change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "In a letter dated January 11,1999, a revised Standard ST-22 requiring Class 1 or 2 backfill for flexible pipe was adopted. This backfill requirement shall be optional at pipe slopes exceeding 1%.' Development Streamlining Task Force - Draf~ Report 9/15/00 Page 21 Public Works: 2.04 Policy that a lot line adjustment map cannot delete existing lot lines. Background: There was a concern about lot line adjustments and mergers of parcels. It was stated that in some areas there is a more streamlined and simplified process. San Bernardino County was given as an example. Staff said they had concerns regarding deleting exiting lines as part of a lot line adjustment and were more interested in a merger concept.. The issue of lot line mergers was discussed related to lot line adjustments and the policy of other jurisdictions. Parcel Map Waivers were discussed as an alternative. It was indicated that the process and cost would be similar to that used for a lot line adjustment. Carl Hernandez distributed a sheet which described the differences between a lot line adjustment and a merger. It was discussed that the Map Act does not allow the creation of more parcels through use of a lot line adjustment. However, in most cases the concerns expressed by the development community could be addressed through the use of a lot line adjustment. The committee reviewed and discussed the lot line adjustment v. merger issue. Staff indicated that use of lot line adjustments to merge lots would be acceptable pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act requirements, until a merger ordinance could be drafted and adopted. Recommendation: Staff to develop a lot merger ordinance (Proposed ordinance included in Appendix). Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 22 Public Works: 2.05 Allow reverse horizontal curves without a tangent line between curves. Background: CELSOC was concerned that this restriction reduced design flexibility. They were also interested in eliminating the tangent when speeds were low. The Traffic Engineer reviewed AASHTO and CalTrans standards and recommended the following policy: 1) Where the standard minimum radius for local streets of 500' is used, no tangent is required between reversing curves. 2) Where exceptions allow use of a minimum 300' radius, no tangent is required between reversing curves, provided the delta for each curve does not exceed 10 °, otherwise a minimum tangent of 100' shall be used. A memorandum has been prepared by the City Traffic Engineer which clarified the City's Policy (included in appendix). Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Reverse horizontal curves Section 3.4.1.1c is modified as follows: Tangent distance between horizontal curves shall be a minimum of 400 feet on m or streets ,,,,~, ~,~, ~ ~,~L ,~,~,~ $'c,'~s. Where the standard minimum radius for local streets of 500' is used, no tangent is required between reversing curves. Where exceptions allow use of a minimum 300' radius for local streets, no tangent is required between reversing curves provided the delta for each curve does not exceed 10 o, or otherwise a minimum tangent of lO0' shall be used." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 23 Public Works: 2.06 Various policies that contradict ordinances. Background: Staff requested specific examples relating to this concern. The issue was removed by the CELSOC representative. Recommendation: No action required. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 24 Public Works: 2.07 Allow a "Variance" procedure to ordinances similar to Kern County system. Background: There was a discussion about the county policy regarding allowing certain variances or deviations from standards required by ordinances. City staff reviewed the county policy to see if was feasible for the city to consider. After review it was determined that the variance procedure was not recommended by the City Attorney's Office. The city currently has some ability to grant variances through actions of the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment and ultimately the City Council. Recommendation: No further action required. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 25 Public Works: 2.08 Policy that will prohibit a developer from connecting a sewer lateral to a trunk sewer line (12" diameter or larger.) Background: There was a concern that the definition of a "trunk sewer line" was unclear. Staff prepared a memorandum which revised the limit on the size of the sewer main which laterals may be connected to from 15" to 18". This memorandum is included in the Appendix. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Sewer laterals Section 1.2.2.1 is modified as follows:, Manholes shall be placed at the intersections of all main sewer lines. A main sewer line shall be defined as any sewer, other than a building lateral, serving one or more building laterals or other sewer mains. No sewer laterals may be connected directly to a sewer lateral main with a diameter greater than 18". A manhole shall be placed at any sewer lateral connection to a sewer main having a diameter larger than 18" .' Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 26 Public Works: 2.09 Policy that requires right turn deceleration lanes on arterials. Background: City Traffic Engineer, Steve Walker explained safety issues regarding right turn lanes. He explained that the city follows CalTrans and International Traffic Safety Standards regarding when right turn lanes are required. Development representatives indicated that right turn lanes can cause design problems with lot depths and the possible loss of lots when the right turn lanes enter a subdivision. There is also a problem when there is a vested map and staff comes back with a requirement for a right turn lane later, and they have to redesign the subdivision. Staff indicated that there are not a lot of right turn lanes required for subdivisions, and where there have been staff has worked to resolve problems and often treat the situation as an existing condition. It was suggested that possibly a lesser lot depth could be allowed by the Planning department for lots adjacent to a right turn lane. Planning Director, Stan Grady indicated that there is currently language in the ordinance that could apply in these circumstances. There was also concern expressed regarding the length of the right turn lane extending beyond the property being developed and creating situations where adjacent property owners must reach an agreement in order to provide the required lane, which is not always easy to accomplish. Steve Walker indicated that there is the ability to possibly change the distances required for the storage transition with appropriate justification. Industry representatives had previously been working with city staff to address some engineering issues regarding right turn lane design. Staff prepared revised details and standards which the task force reviewed. Marian Shaw distributed a draft standard detail for right turn lanes, a cross section and other information on turn lanes for review and comment. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Right turn lane Section 4.8.5, "City Streets - Turn Lane Storage" is modified. The modified section and Standard T-XX showing an optional concrete cross section are included in the Appendix." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 27 Public Works: 2.10 Proposed policy requiring P.V.C. lined sewer manholes. Background: CELSOC requested that the City standard allow for the use of A-lock lined sewer manholes. Marian Shaw distributed a draft policy from the Public Works Department for the committee to review and comment on. Public Works distributed a draft of specifications including A-lock PVC lined sewer manholes for review and comment by CELSOC and the task force. Staff is to prepare new specifications to incorporate comments from the task force, including allowing several design options including the A-lock lined sewer manholes. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues'discussed by the Task Force as follows: "PVC-lined manholes The following language is added to Section 1.4. Manholes and Cleanouts (Lampholes) "All manholes for sewer lines larger than 18" in diameter shall be PVC-lined. This will include any manhole added to an existing sewer line larger than 18" in diameter for the purposes of connecting a new sewer lateral or new sewer system. Both T-lock and A-lock lining is allowed."" Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 28 Public Works: 2.11 Allow CELSOC to review and discuss proposed subdivision standard revisions. Background: There was a discussion about developing processes for providing information and soliciting input from the development industry regarding proposed changes to city policies and rules. It was discussed that regular meetings with industry groups would be beneficial. In addition staff indicated that the city web site could be used to provide information on any new or changing standards, regulations or policies. The system can be set up to allow for comments on any new issues or changes by the public. Also, the current development standards can be made available using laserfiche on the web so people can make sure they have the current standard. Staff also presented the idea that any changes to standards or regulations (except those required for public health and safety) could be implemented in a six month cycle to give the industry adequate notice and ability to incorporate them into their projects. Public Works has also provided the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual on the · Internet at the City's web page. Proposed changes to the Manual would also be posted to the web page for review and comment by the industry. Recommendation: Staff will provide proposed subdivision policies, standards and design manual changes to CELSOC and post them on the Internet for review and comment. Staff has recommended the following policy change: "2.11 Allow CELSOC to review and discuss proposed subdivision standard revisions In the future, updates to the Manual will be done on a semi-annual basis - January 1 and July 1. Anything proposed during the review period between January 1 and June 30 would be adopted as soon as possible after July 1; anything proposed during the review period between July 1 and December 31 would be adopted as soon as possible after January 1. As soon as they are available, all proposed updates will be posted to the web site in a section titled "Proposed Updates - January Cycle" or "Proposed Updates - July Cycle", as well as being mailed to the Public Work's Department's mailing list of engineers, contractors and developers." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 29 Public Works: 2.12 Sewer lift station design policies - inconsistencies within City staff on requirements for station design. Background: Concerns were expressed regarding sewer lift station design policies and inconsistencies. This item resulted from a mis-communication at the staff level and has since been corrected. Recommendation: No action required. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 30 Public Works: 2.13 Allow to design to 300' rad. Curve in local streets. / Background: The Design Manual currently allows the use of a 300' radii for a curve on a local street. CELSOC requested that the requirement for a tangent section be removed. A memorandum was prepared by the City Traffic Engineer which reduced the requirement for a tangent section if the delta does not exceed 10° (included in Appendix). Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "300' radius for local streets The use of a 300' radius is currently allowed under certain conditions. (See 2.05)" Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 31 Public Works: 2.14 Standardize Insurance Certificate reqUirements. Background: City Risk Manager, Scott Manzer explained city insurance requirements and distributed examples of standard insurance clauses and sample certificates of insurance. He also explained city insurance endorsement requirements. He developed a packet of information which will be available at the Public Works department counter that provides guidelines regarding city insurance requirements for developers. Recommendation: Risk Management has prepared a standardized packet of information and form for required insurance information which will be available in the Development Services and Public Works public counters and on the Internet (Included in Appendix). Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 32 Public Works: 2.15 Establish a standard for minimum slopes on PVC sewer lines. Background: CELSOC asked if under certain conditions, the City would consider allowing minimum slopes based upon a friction coefficient ("Mannings" value) for PVC rather than for concrete. Both staff and CELSOC recognize that at minimum slopes, there is difficulty in attaining the required minimum velocity, as opposed to the theoretical velocity. Staff is modifying the Design Manual to allow flexibility. Recommendation: Staff will expand that section of the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual to set out the policy to allow more flexibility in the downstream reaches provided that the upstream reaches meet the current minimum standards as follows: "Minimum slopes for PVC sewer lines The following language is added to Section 1.2.1.3 Minimum Slopes: "Some flexibility with respect to minimum slopes and Mannings coefficient (with an absolute minimum of 0.011) may be allowed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis to the lower reaches of a sewer system, provided that all City standards are met on the upper reaches of that same sewer system."" Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 33 Public Works: 2.16 Allow Parcel Map Waivers where site will be developed through additional review process (To provide for phased tract maps). Background: CELSOC has requested that the Parcel Map Waiver process be used to map out legal, saleable parcels conforming to the boundaries of a tentative Tract Map phase to accommodate financing - to enable the developer to lien only the phase under construction, not the entire tract. Staff has no philosophical difficulty with this proposal, so long as certain potential problems can be taken care of in some manner. For instance, if the phases are held by different property owners, and if the first phase to develop can only obtain sewer service by an off site line going through the other phases of the tract, there must be some assurance that the easement will not be withheld. Staff is not amenable to shortchanging city standards to accommodate a dispute between property owners who are developing the same tract. The same would hold true for other types of infrastructure - water, storm drainage, power, telephone, emergency and secondary access, etc. If CELSOC can propose something whereby these types of problems are taken into account, the staff will support a process that provides for these requirements and public improvements. Recommendation: Staff will continue to work with CELSOC to determine if a proposal to allow for phasing of development that maintains city infrastructure standards is feasible. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 34 Public Works: 2.17 Eliminate Street Monumentation at phase boundaries. Background: There was a discussion regarding the requirement by city ordinance of monuments on street center lines. Concerns were expressed about the additional costs of providing them when they may not be necessary. Staff indicated they would be willing to eliminate the requirement regarding monumentation of phased development, however they would like to discuss a requirement for monuments on all parcel maps. This would be consistent with county requirements. Staff will modify City ordinances to remove the requirement to monument street center lines at phase boundaries, and will instead allow witness corners. Recommendation: Staff will amend the ordinance to remove the requirement to monument Center lines at phase boundaries, and will instead allow witness corners. (Proposed ordinance included in Appendix). Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 35 Public Works: 2.18 Use of cross-gutters instead of siphons. Siphons usually initiate response from City to extend storm drain. Background: The use of cross gutters instead of siphons at intersections was discussed. Staff will review the condition of some existing 12' wide crossgutters to determine the feasibility of allowing their use in lieu of siphons. Staff will review the feasibility of using cross gutters in place of siphons and add language to the design manual which discourages the use of siphons. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Use of cross gutters rather than siphons Section 2.5.4.1 is modified as follows: "Cross gutters will not be permitted across major arterials, major collectors, local collectors or streets with anticipated traffic volumes greater than 200 vehicles per day. Mid-block cross gutters will not be permitted C:I.k..k..C.L.,.~LCU C;L.LUr..L ~J. LCLJ. J. I.~'C UC~J.~)J. LCU Ck.~ _I,,,~'C:L~ LJ. LC: J.q;~'k,.,l_~n.J.'Ck.L k,.LC~J.~TJ.L ~LJ. UVV J. IL ~ The use o/siphons is strongly discouraged. A tzoelve-/oot zoide cross gutter may be considered on local streets with anticipated traffic volumes greater than 200 vehicles per day if it passes the required design flow in the gutter." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 36 Public Works: 2.19 Traffic Department does not allow 4-way intersections within subdivisions. Background: Staff provided copies of a proposed standard from Traffic Engineering which would clarify the design requirements for 4-way local intersections. The task force reviewed and agreed with the proposed new language. A memorandum has been prepared by the City Traffic Engineer which clarified the City's Policy and criteria (included in Appendix). Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Four-way intersections within subdivisions Section 3.4.1.5 is modified as follows: "All streets entering upon any given street shall have their centerlines directly opposite each other or separated by at least 136 feet. Attention is directed to details T-21 and T-22 in Chapter 4 for minimum spacing of street intersections along major streets and to other access limitations detailed in Chapter 4.8. "Tee" intersections are preferred over four-way intersections on interior local streets to reduce turning conflicts at the intersections and to discourage outside traffic cutting through residential streets, thereby promoting liveable streets and neighborhoods. A-re xl.~l uJ. [J. k.;J. L~;LJ. I.,L1 LLCDD _~J. J. UJ. _F,JCI. X L.C..LJ.Z.,CI. L.L~J.L [ ~.JJ. J. CtJ. EM. ~,..,L1 V 1D,L~JJ. [ U..L~ L(~ LCD ULIL~;X YVID~;~! ~u.~jc:,...t LLJ LIL~ CI. xIJ_J~l~,.J¥ C11 UX LIL~;~ IlCLXJ. I~, .L~J.L~)XJ. LCC.L. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 37 Public Works: 2.20 Extension of Vested Rights. Background: City ordinance provides that once a vested map is final and recorded, the vesting rights to develop last for a period of one (1) year. The developer may seek an extension of vested rights for another one (1) year period. The Map Act allows for an initial period of not less than one (1) year, or more than two (2) years. CELSOC requested that the time period be changed to a two (2) year initial period and a one (1) year extention for a total of three (3) years. City staff indicated they had concerns regarding such long extensions since they also lock in fee and development requirements, which could change significantly over that period of time. There are also potential negative impacts when improvements are financed through assessment districts. It was also noted that the Urban Development Committee recently reviewed this issue and approved retaining the current policy of one (1) year with a one (1) year extension. Staff indicated they would continue to recommend no change to the period of time for vested rights. Recommendation: The Task force did not reach a consensus on this issue. However, CELSOC requested that the issue be submitted to the Urban Development Committee for reconsideration. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 38 Public Works: 2.21 Graded Roads with gravel base - regarding off site sewer facilities. Background: The use of 20' Graded road with gravel surface for off-site sewer lines was discussed. There were concerns regarding the cost to install and the need for access by city crews to maintain sewer lines. This requirement is placed upon a tract when there will otherwise be difficulty accessing the sewer line for maintenance. It is applied on a case by case basis, and is generally only required in the areas of town with steeper slopes and questionable soils. Staff will come up with some slope criteria. Recommendation: Public Works staff recommended the following change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Graded roads with gravel base for off-site sewer access The following section is added to the Sewer Section: "Section 1.2.9 Offsite Sewers An access easement must be provided for all sewer lines constructed off the site of the current development. Additionally, physical access to the sewer main line must be provided. At a minimum, a 20' x 20' graded pad must be provided at each manhole with a surface - either native ground, gravel or other material - dependant on the soil conditions. Unless the developer's engineer can provide proof, acceptable to the City Engineer, that the soil is of sufficient character to support the maintenance load, the City Engineer may require additional improvements for access on a case-by-case basis."" This is a contested item. CELSOC would like a bladed access road to satisfy this requirement. Staff will continue working with CELSOC to see if this issue can be resolved. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 39 Public Works: 2.22 Extension of gravel base similar to County standard where there are no curbs or gutters to address edge stresses and improve edge of pavement conditions (City request). Background: City staff requested that the Task Force review the implementation of a standard similar to the County standard for the extension of the gravel base along roadways where there are no curbs or gutters. This was to address edge stresses and to improve edge of pavement conditions on City streets. The Task Force was supportive of the new standard. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Edge of pavement condition Standard ST-XXX is added showing edge of pavement condition in those circumstances where curb and gutter is not constructed." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 40 Public Works: 2.23 Monuments at Parcel Map boundaries. Background: Staff has proposed a change in the city's ordinances regarding monumentation of parcel map boundaries which would be consistent with county requirements. Staff will modify the City's ordinances to require monumentation of Parcel Map boundaries for those Parcel Maps containing parcels of less than 20 acres. This change will only affect those maps whose applications are deemed complete after the effective date of the revised ordinance. CELSOC agreed with this change as long as it was applied consistently. Recommendation: Staff will amend the ordinance to require monumentation of Parcel Map boundaries for those Parcel Maps containing parcels of less than 20 acres. (Proposed ordinance included in Appendix). Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 41 Public Works: 2.24 Encroachment permit streamlining. Background: Staff made a proposal to combine the existing encroachment permit, street permit and open street permit intO a single encroachment permit. This would simplify and streamline the process and would be similar to what the state and county practice is. The Task Force supported the change and staff will prepare an ordinance to accomplish this. Subsequent to review of changes required to the various ordinances involving the encroachment permit process, staff has determined that the scope of this change will require sigfiificant time and involvement by groups not represented by the task force, specifically public utilities and contractors who perform this type of work. There fore further work on this issue should occur outside the streamlining process. Recommendation: Staff to work With utilities, CELSOC and other affected parties to evaluate combining various encroachment permits. Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 42 Public Works: 2.25 Use of non-radial property lines on cul-de-sacs and knuckles. Background: There was discussion about the ability for developers to use non-radial property lines on cul-de-sacs and knuckles to provide design flexibility. Staff indicated that it is currently regulated by ordinance. Staff indicated that the ordinance could be amended to provide more flexibility when the developer can show the need and benefit of using non-radial property lines. Staff will come back with a proposed ordinance change to address this issue and provide more flexibility in design. Recommendation: Staff to prepare a proposed policy to provide more design flexibility as follows: "2.25 Use of non-radial property lines on cul-de-sacs and knuckles The ordinance currently reads as follows: 16.28.170 F. Lot Lines. The sidelines of all lots, so far as practicable, shall be at right angles to the street which the lot faces, or radial or approximately radial if the street is curved. Public Works policy on this item shall be: Right angle or radial side lot lines are required so far as practicable. Non- radial and non-perpendicular sidel lot lines may be used if the developer can show, to the satisfaction of the City Engi- neer, that the requested non-radial or non-perpendicular side lot lines are a practical design alternative, that they will not unduly confuse or inconvenience the end user (home owner), and that there is no adverse effect upon health, safety and welfare of the residents." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 43 Public Works: 2.26 Policy regarding use of USGS vs. City survey benchmarks. Background: There was a discussion about the requirement to use USGS benchmarks as a require- ment of the checklist for improvement plans. Staff indicated that there is no system of city benchmarks, or any other uniform benchmark system within the city. It was recommended that the benchmark requirement be clarified to require use of a USGA within a reasonable distance (1/4 mile) or if not available the nearest durable bench- mark. Staff was to develop a written policy clarifying this proposal to resolve the issue. Recommendation: Public Works staff to prepare change to the Subdivision and Engi- neering Design Manual addressing and clarifying subdivision design issues discussed by the Task Force as follows: "Policy regarding use of USGS vs. City survey benchmarks Section 3.6.10 is modified as follows: Bench Mark - tdfiC:rS-d~m - If there is a USGS monument within 1/4 mile of the development, then the USGS monument shall be used as the benchmark. Ifa USGS monument is not located within that distance, then the use ora durable monument is allowed. v~=,~,~ ~ ~,L~ ,_,~y - equations ~'~-ordt will not be ac- ceptable." Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 44 Appendix Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 45 List of Documents 1. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California - Preliminary List of Discussion Items for Task Force Committee 2. Draft ordinance - Chapter 16.52 Appeals [item 1.01] 3. Memo re. Development Streamlining Issues to John W. Stinson from Carl Hernandez dated 6/29/99, Planning Commission Appeals Form ,Staff report language [item 1.02] 4. Draft ordinance - amending Section16.12.070 relating to payment of maintenance district fees for parcel map waivers. [item 1.03] 5. Draft ordinance - amending Section 16.16.080 a relating to expiration of tentative map approvals. [item 1.05] 6. Map Life Timelines/Current Practice [items 1.05 & 1.20] 7. Draft ordinance - amending Section 15.80.100 relating to determination of fair market value of park land to be dedicated or the payment of in lieu fees for development. [item 1.07] 8. Draft ordinance - amending various sections related to subdivisions. [item 1.09] 9. Condition language re. providing frontage improvements in lieu of escrow account. [item 2.01] 10. Memo re. Changes to the Subdivision and Engineering Manual [items 2.03, 2.05, 2.08,2.09, 2.10, 2.13, 2.15, 2.18, 2.19, 2.21, 2.22, and 2.26) 11. Memo re. Proposed Changes to Public Works Policy [items 1.03, 2.01, 2.11, & 2.25] 12. Draft ordinance '- adding Chapter 16.38 Authorizing the merger of parcels [2.04] 13. Memo re. ReCommendations for Geometric Standard for Local Streets to Marian Shaw from Steve Walker dated 8/26/99 [items 2.05 and 2.13] 14. Draft policy re. Sewer Standards, Manholes and Laterals dated 9/2/99 [item 2.081 Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 46 15. Draft standard re. Sanitary Sewer (PVC lined RCP) [item 2.10] 16. City of Bakersfield Basic Insurance Requirements (as of October 1999) [item 2.14] 17. Draft ordinance - amending Section 16.32.100 relating to subdivision map survey requirements. [item 2.17] 18. Memo re. Streamlining Process, Four-Way Local Intersections to Marion Shaw from Steve Walker dated 9/15/99 [item 2.19] 19. Draft ordinance - amending Section 16.22.010 relating to preparation of final parcel maps [item 2.23] Development Streamlining Task Force - Draft Report 9/15/00 Page 47 CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF CALIFORN IA PRELIMtNARY LIST OF DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE COMMITTEE PLANNING DEPARTMEI',JT 1. Om~ance amendment t~ restrict public appeals to City Coundl. 2. Policy of restricting public input at Planning C~'nmissicn meetings at Extension of Time for tentative maps. 3. Notice Of 2/18/99 regarding Maintenance DistfictTentative Map. 4. Policy requiring Maintenance Districts for minor property divisions. 5. Lenglhs of lime for both Approved Tentative Maps end Extensions of Time. §. Allow~g a change to the Conditions for Approval without re-sul:~itting a Revised Tentative Map. 7. Eliminate requirement of appraisal for park fees. 8. Review requirement for archaeology study on land that has been farmed or prev~3usly graded. PUBLIC WgRKS DEPARTMENT 1. Policy regarding phasing of tentative map, and requked money to be impounded for later co~sfl-u~ ia later phases of the map. 2. Policy to file an al31:~eal with City Council on an appeal filed by public to City Councit. 3. Policy letter dated 1/11/99. regarding ~ench backfill and cowlpaction requirements. 4. Policy I~at a lot li~e adjustment map cannot delete existing lot lines. 5, Allow reverse horizontal curves without a tangent line between curws. 6. Various policies that contradict ordinances. 7. Allow a 'Variance' procedure b ordinances similar to the Kern County system. 8. Polic7 that will prohibit a developer frem connec'dng a sewer lateral to a trunk sewer line (12' 9. Policy lflat requires right-turn deceleration lanes on ac~et~als. 10. prOposed policy requiring P.V.C. lined sewer.manholes. 11. Allow CELSOC to review and discuss proposed subdivision standard revisions. 12. Sewer LiE Station design policies. a) Inconsistencies w~i~ City S~ff on requirements for station design. ,~ 13. Nlow to design to 300' rad. curve in local streels. ~ 14. Standardize Insurance C, ert~icate requirements. 15. Estal~lish a standard for m~imum slopes on PVC sewer pipe. .~ 16. Allow Parcel Map Wah~rs where site will be developed through additional regiew process (to provide for phased trac~ maps). '~ 17. Eliminate street monumentation at Phase boundaries. ~...:J .,~ 18. Usa of crosa-guffers instead of siphons. Siphons usually initiate response from City to extend ~ storm drain. 19. Traffic detriment does not allow 4 way intersections within Subdivisions. . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16,52 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPEALS, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.52 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sections: ,' 16.52.010 Who may file. 16.52.020 Filing. 16.52.030 Hearing -- Notice to subdivider -- City council decision. 16.52.-040 City council action and findings. 16.52.010 Who may file. The subdivider, the city engineer, the planning director or any interested person adv.e!;se!y affected.by a decision of the advisory agency ~ !~:~i~?~, may file an appeal from such decision to the city council. 16.52.020 Filing. ~ Any such appeal, except for a decision for extension of time for a tentative map, shall be filed with the clerk of the city council within ten days after the action of the advisory agency from which the appeal is being taken. An appeal for a decision for an extension of time for a tentative tract or tentative parcel map shall be filed with the clerk of the city council within fifteen days after the action of the advisory agency from which the appeal is being taken. :::::::: :::::::2::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $i:~:: :i: :i::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :k:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ i:~ :Ni~ !~i~:~i~l~i~iit~?~iI~:if~iit~ ~d~is°~ a?n~y:·~ec~sie~is~a[l~?e×~s~ Page 1 of 3 16.52.030 Hearing -- Notice to subdivider-- City council decision. A. Upon the filing of an appeal, the city 6-terk shall sat t,he ,,-~attar for ,h.a..~?.,,~. ~ ...... J ................................ ~.......~ .......... . ..................... . .................,................................................................................ z. :. :...:. ?:. :. :. :. :.:. :. :. :. :. :.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::: B. Such hearing shall be held within thi~y days after the date of filing the appeal unless the subdivider consents to a continuance. C. Within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing, the city council shall render its decision on the appeal. 16.52.040 City council action and findings. The city council may sustain, modify, reject or overrule any recommendation, finding or ruling of the advisory agency and shall make appropriate findings. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... 000 .......... Page.2 of 3 ! HEREBY-CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: CARL HERNANDEZ III Assistant City Attorney CH:lsc S:~COUNCtL'~Ords\I 6.52AppealsAmnd.wpd Page 3 of 3 ICONFIDENTIAL. PROTECTED KY ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND A'FI'ORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES June 29,1999 TO: JOHN W. STINSON, Assistant City Manager FROM: CARL HERNANDEZ III, Assistant City Attorney0..~ SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT STREAMLINING TASK FORCE ISSUES At the last Development Streamlining Task Force meeting, City staff agreed to: 1. Amend the "Notice of Right to Appeal" as currently stated on Planning Commission agendas. New language which reflects that the basis for appeal must be contained-in the appeal application is attached to this memo. 2. Amend the standard language contained in staff reports regarding the Planning Commission's ability to deny an extension of time. A request was made and agreed upon that the City would "soften" the language. Proposed language is attached to this memo. Furthermore, in a letter dated April 1, 1999, Roger Mclntosh of Martin-Mclntosh states that there is "no provision in the [Map Act] for any other person or party to appeal a decision of the advisory agency approvin.q an extension of time for a vesting tentative map .... "Attached to this memo is language found in the Map Act which alloWs an appeal of any decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, including an extension of time for a vesting tentative map. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. CH:lsc Attachments cc: Stanley Grady, Planning Director S:\Stinson,extntimeappeal.wpd NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on zone changes, parcel maps and tentative subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any interested person adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the appellant's interest in o.r relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed and shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld. Such appeal must be filed in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the hearing, addressed to the City Council, c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301. A $330.00 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applica, r~t or any person outside the noticed area. All appeals filed on land division will require a $330.00 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, a hearing will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time, or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. S:' Planning\Notice RightAppeal.wpd STAFF REPORT LANGUAGE The Planning Commission must receive and consider all evidence presented by the subdivider, staff and the public prior to making any determination to grant or deny a request for extension of time for a tentative map. Generally speaking, when considering an extension of time, the City cannot modify an existing condition or add a new condition to the map unless the subdivider agrees with the proposed modification or addition. If the subdivider does not agree with the proposed modification or addition, the Planning Commission may deny the requested extension if it makes a finding, based on justifying evidence, that unless the proposed modification or addition is imposed, the project would be injurious to public health, safety and/or general welfare. S:'Planning',StaffRlCd.anguage.wlxl Planning Commission Appeals Form Planning Commission decisions on zone changes, parcel maps and tentative subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any interested person .adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. Pursuant to state law and City ordinance, you have ten (;10) days from the date of the Commission's decision (fifteen'(15) days if the decision is regarding an extension of time) to file an appeal. If you are the applicant for the decision being appealed or live outside the area noticed for the decision, you are required to .pay a $334 appeal fee. In order to best assist in processing the appeal, please provide the information requested below. Incomplete information may result in the rejection of your appeal. If you have any questions about the appeals process, please call the City's Planning Department at (661) 326-3733. Name and Address: Interest in or relationship to the property which is the subject of the appeal: List the action(s) you are appealing and the basis of your appeal: Dated' Signed: Printed Name: STAFF REPORT LANGUAGE The Planning Commission must receive and consider all evidence presented by the subdivider, staff and the public prior to making any determination to grant or deny a request for extension of time for a tentative map. Generally speaking, when considering an extension of time, the City cannot modify an existing condition or add a new condition to the map .unless the subdivider agrees with the proposed modification or addition. If the subdivider does not agree with the proposed modification or addition, the Planning Commission may deny the requested extension if it makes a finding, based on justifying evidence, that unless the proposed modification or addition is imposed, the project would be injurious to public health, safety and/or general welfare. S:~Planning~taffi:qpfl. anguage.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.12.070 OFTHE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FEES FOR PARCEL MAP WAIVERS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 16.12.070 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 16.12.070 Fees. A. Fees for filing, checking and processing of any map or any other papers, maps, diagrams, or documents required .under this title, fees for preparation and filing of any certificate of compliance and fees for any appeal authorized under this chapter shall ~ In establishing, .i.ncre~sing or imposing a fee, as defined in Section 66000 of the Government Code, the ~ity 6~ouncil shall comply with Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. -oo00oo- Page 1 of 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: CARL HERNANDEZ Iii Deputy City Attorney CH:lsc S:~COUNCIL~Drds~MaintDistFees.wpd Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 16.16.080 (A) OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EXPIRATION OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVALS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section16.16.080 (A) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: A. An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire-t'#e¢~ ~months after its approval or conditional approval; provided, however, that any tentative map approved or conditionally approved by Kern County for an area which is subsequently annexed into the city prior to recordation of a final map shall expire in accordance with the ordinance requirements of Kern County and the Subdivision Map ACt. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. · .......... 000 .......... Page 1 of 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of th,e City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE, Mayor CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: CARL HERNANDEZ III " Deputy City Attorney CH:Isc S:~COUNCIL\Ords\I 6.16.080Amend.wpd Page 2 of 2 Map Life Timelines/Current Practice Tentative Maps City County State Map Act Initial 2 Years 3 Years 2 -3 Years Life (16.16.080) (18.15.100 A.1) (66452.6(a)) Extensions '5 Years 3 Years 5 Years Available* (16.16.080 B.) (18.15.100 B.2.) (66452.6(e)) Total Tentative 7 Years 6 Years 8 Years Map Life Possible Final Map/Vesting Rights City County State Map Act Vesting Rights 1 Year 2 Years 1-2 Years Initial Life ' (16.24.090 C. 1.) (18.40.040 C. 1) (66498.5(b)) (From recordation) Extensions 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year Available (16.24.090 C.3.) (18.40.040 C.3.) (66498.5(c)) Total Vesting Life 2 Years 3 Years 3 Years * City practice is currently 5 years worth of extensions although ordinance still reads 3 years. Ordinance change is in process. State law overrides local ordinance. Current practice is to grant extensions in increments of 2 yr + 2 yr + 1 yr = 5 years. County practice and ordinance is 3 years. 5 years was recently considered and rejected by Board. 3 years extension granted all at once. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\map life timeline.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.80.100 OF THEBAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PARK LAND TO BE DEDICATED OR THE PAYMENT OF IN LIEU FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15.80.100 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: " Section 15.80.100 Determination of fair market value. ~ii The fair market value of park land to be dedicated or of the property on which in-lieu fe'~es are to be paid shall be determined'by a written appraisal report acceptable to the planning director, or his designee, and prepared and signed by a qualified appraiser acceptable to the planning director or his designee, in accordance with appraisal standards and practices adopted by res~h~t'~ the city council. If an appraiser or appraisal report is not acceptable to the planning director, or his designee, he shall require a new or updated appraisal.from the subdivider. The cost of all appraisals shall be borne by the subdivider. The appraisal shall be-based on the value of unimproved real property for the land to be dedicated for park purposes serving said development, or no specific park site has been identified, then the appraisal shall be based on the value of the unimproved real property to be subdivided; except as otherwise provided in Section 1'5.80.080C, when the city has acquired a park serving the subdivision. The appraisal shall be made no more than ninety days prior to the recordation of the final map for subdivisions, parcel maps, or recordation of a certificate of compliance for parcel map waivers. If mutually agreed to in writing by the planning director or his designee, and subdivider, an appraisal made within six months prior to recordation of the final map in the case of subdivisions, parcel maps, or recordation of a certificate of compliance, may be used to determine fair market value. The subdivider shall submit such appraisal to the planning director, or his designee, in sufficient time as the planning director establishes, prior to recordation of a final map or certificate of compliance. If more than six months elapse before recordation of the final map or certificate of compliance, the planning director may require a new or updated appraisal. If an appraiser or appraisa~ Page 1 of 2 report is not acceptable to the planning director, or his designee, he shall require a new or updated appraisal at the subdivider's expense. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance waspassed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBER CAP`SON, DEMOND, MAGGAP, D, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:lsc S:~OUNCIL~:)rds~FairMrktValue. ParkDed.wpd Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.16.010 (G), SECTION 16.16.020 (A), SECTION 16.16.030 (F), SECTION 16.16;080 (B), SECTION 16.16.080 (E), SECTIONS 16.20.110 (A) AND (B), SECTION 16.24.090 (C)(4); SECTION 16.28.170 (H) AND SECTION 16.32.080 (E); AND SECTION 16.16.010 (G) AND ADDING SECTIONS 16.16.080 (G.1 AND G.2), OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 1,2000 and continued the public hearing to June 15, 2000, to consider amending various sections of Title 16 of the Bakersfield .Municipal Code related to subdivisions; and WHEREAS, all written comment submitted and public testimony received during said public hearings was duly heard and considered by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 55-00, on June 15, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of said ordinance amendments and this Council has fully considered the recommendation made by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are needed to reflect recent updates to the State of California Subdivision Map Act and facilitate processing of tentative subdivision maps; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation of environmental documents as set forth in CEQA and the City of Bakersfield CEQA implementation procedures has been duly followed by City staff, Planning Commission and this Council, determined this project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined after due consideration of the recommendation of the Planning Commission herein on file, that the proposed ordinance amendment should be adopted. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: S:\COUNClL\Ords~subdivisionordamend.wpd August 3, 2000 SECTION 1. 1. All the foregoing recitals, incorporated herein, are found to be true and correct. 2. The Council adopts the following findings as recommended by the Planning Commission: a. All required public notices have been given. b. The proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3), general rule, of CEQA Guidelines. c. The proposed ordinance amendments are consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. d. The proposed amendments are necessary for orderly development in the City. SECTION 2. Subsection G of Section 16.16.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: G. Every person submitting a tentative parcel map who desires consideration of deferral and waiver of any improvements in accordance with Section 16.32.080 shall submit a written request which details what deferrals and waivers are requested for consideration with justification for each requested deferral and waiver. SECTION 3. Subsection A of Section 16.16.'020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: A. The tentative map and all information thereon shall be clearly and legibly drawn, written, printed or reproduced, and may be rejected by the Planning Director if not so done. The tentative map shall be submitted on sheets of paper or other acceptable mediums, such as vellum or mylar, and shall contain a legible stamp and signature of the registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. S:\COUNClL\Ords~subdivisionordamend.wpd August 3, 2000 SECTION 4. Subsection F of Section 16.16.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: F. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision including the subdivision's relationship to existing, adjacent subdivisions, the subdivision's surroundings, and bearings and distances indicating the map boundaries. At the option of the applicant, electronic data may be submitted to provide the bearings and distances indicating the map boundaries. SECTION 5. Subsection B of Section 16.16.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as ~follows: B. An extension or extensions of tentative map' approval or conditional approval shall not exceed an aggregate of five (5) years. However, if an extension of time application is appealed in accordance with Section 16.52, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall not expire prior to a decision by the City Council in accordance with Section 16.52. SECTION 6. Subsection E of Section 16.16.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. If the subdivider whose tract has been approved by the advisory agency for multiple, or phased, final maps is subject to a requirement of $125,000 or more, as adjusted pursuant to Section 66452.6(a)(2), to construct or improve or finance the construction or improvement of public improvements outside the boundaries of the tentative map, each filing of a final map authorized by Section 66456.1 of the Map Act shall extend the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map by 36 months from the date of its expiration as provided in this section, or the date of the previously approved final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the tentative map more than -10 years from its approval or conditional approval. Prior to the filing of the first final map, the subdivider shall make written notification to the City Engineer of eligibility for such extension of time. Such notification shall include documentation as determined by the City Engineer by which eligibility can be verified. "Public improvements," as used in this subsection, include fees, traffic controls, S:\COUNClL\Ords~subdivisionordamend.wpd August 3, 2000 3 streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, over-crossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, and lighting facilities. SECTION 7. Subsection G of Section 16.16.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: G. After approval of the tentative map, if changes deemed substantial by the City Engineer and Planning Director are proposed, a filing of a Revised Tentative Map will be required. 1. The previously assigned tract number will be used with the word "Revised" added to the number. The procedure for filing a Revised Tentative Map is the same as for the Tentative Map. A Revised Tentative Map cannot be filed if the approval on the original map has expired. An approved revised tentative map supersedes the tentative map for which it was filed. 2. A Revised Tentative Map will be required to include all' the land subdivided under the originally assigned tract number, as approved by the advisory agency, except a phase or phases of the original tentative map which have recorded in accordance with this Chapter shall be excluded from the revised tentative map. SECTION 8. Subsections A and B of Section 16.20.110 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: A. The Planning Commission, or City Council upon appeal, approved or conditionally approved the tentative map and any applicable extensions thereof and the date such action was taken. B. The subdivision, as shown on the final map, is substantially the same as it appeared on the tentative map and in accordance with any conditions approved by the-commission, or City Council upon appeal. SECTION 9. Subsection C.4. of Section 16.24.090 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended -to read as follows: S:\COU NCIL\Ords~subdivisionordarnend.wpd August 3, 2000 4 4. If the subdivider submits a complete application for a building permit during the periods of time specified in subdivisions 1-3 of this subsection, the rights referred to herein shall continue until the expiration of that permit, or any extension of that permit. The time limits set forth herein shall specifically apply only to those building permit applications submitted during the periods of time specified in subdivisions 1-3 of'this subsection. The expiration and extension of such building permits shall be governed by the specific provisions of Chapter 15.12 of this Code (Uniform Building Code) pertaining to permit issuance. SECTION 10. Subsection H of Section 16.28.170 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots having a depth less than two hundred feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency, conditions permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where the proposed double frontage lots abut an arterial or collector street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shall have a six foot high masonry wall (the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowner's association or maintenance district installed within the street right-of- way and additional landscape easement or adjacent common lot. Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be approved in areas where, in the opinion of the advisory agency, topographic or other physical conditions make strict adherence to this criteria undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final tract or final parcel map. SECTION 11. Subsection E of Section 16.32.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. The provisions of subsections C. and D. of Section 16.32.060 shall apply to subdivisions for which a final parcel map is required. S :\CO U NC I L\Ords~subdivisionordamend.wpd August 3, 2000 SECTION 12. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provision of the Bakersfield Municipal code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage, ........ oOo ........ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at the regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: BART THILTGEN CITY ATTORNEY BY: CARL HERNANDEZ DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY s:\Co U NCI L~Ords',subdivisiono~damend.wpd August 3, 2000 The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced (or is to be' balanced) with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefor, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of a final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase it's proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M ORA N D U M ~-~ TO: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager iC~TY ~'~r,~,~'~:~'e ..... . FROM: Marian P. Shaw, Civil Engineer IV ,' DATE: August 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Development Streamlining Committee Proposed Changes to the Subdivision and Engineering Manual As a result of the work of the Development Streamlining Subcommittee of the Urban Development Committee, several changes in the City of Bakersfield's Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual have been proposed. These changes were summarized in a letter sent to CELSOC back at the beginning of the year, but as yet we have received no comments from them. These changes are summarized as follows, but may be subject to change: 2.03 Trench backfill and compaction. In a letter dated January 11, 1999, a revised Standard ST-22 requiring Class 1 or 2 backfill for flexible pipe was adopted. This backfill requirement shall be optional at pipe slopes exceeding 1%. 2.05 Reverse horizontal curves Section 3.4.1.1c is modified as follows: Tangent distance between horizontal curves shall be a minimum of 400 feet on major streets ~,,";d '"'"'"' ~_A, ,A~, ,..,.,,., ,~, on,,.,,.,:,, streets. Where the standard minimum radius for local streets of 500' is used, no tangent is required between reversing curves. Where exceptions allow use of a minimum 300' radius for local streets, no tangent is required between reversing curves provided the delta for each curve does not exceed 10°, or otherwise a minimum tangent of 100' shall be used. 2.08 Sewer laterals Section 1.2.2.1 is modified as follows: "Manholes shall be placed at the intersections of all main sewer lines. A main sewer line shall be defined as any sewer, other than a building lateral, serving one or more building laterals or other sewer mains. No sewer laterals may be connected directly to a sewer main with a diameter greater than 18': A manhole shall be placed at any sewer lateral connection to a sewer main having a diameter larger than 18". 2.09 Right turn lane Section 4.8.5, "City Streets - Turn Lane Storaqe" is modified. The modified section is attached. Also attached 'is Standard T-XX showing an optional concrete cross section. 2.10 PVC-lined manholes The following language is added to Section 1.4. Manholes and Cleanouts (Lampholes)"All manholes for sewer lines larger than 18" in diameter shall be PVC-lined. This will include any manhole added to an existing sewer line larger than 18" in diameter for the purposes of connecting a new sewer lateral or new sewer system. Both T-lock and A-lock lining is allowed." 2.13 300' radius for local streets The use of a 300' radius is currently allowed under certain conditions. 2.15 Minimum slopes for PVC sewer lines The following language is added to Section 1.2.1.3 Minimum Slopes: "Some flexibility with respect to minimum slopes and Mannings coefficient (with an absolute minimum of 0.011) may be allowed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis to the lower reaches of a sewer system, provided that all City standards are met on the upper reaches of that same sewer system." 2.18 Use of cross'gutters ratherthan siphons Section 2.5.4.1 is modified as follows: "Cross gutters will not be permitted across major arterials, major collectors, local collectors or streets with anticipated traffic volumes greater than 200 vehicles per day. Mid-block cross gutters will not be permitted. The use of siphons is strongly discouraged. A twelve-foot wide cross gutter may be considered on local streets with anticipated traffic volumes greater than 200 vehicles a day if it passes the required design flow in the gutter. 2.19 Four-way intersections within subdivisions Section 3.4.1.5 is modified as follows: "All streets entering upon any given street shall have their centerlines directly opposite each other or separated by at least ~,50 136 feet. Attention is directed to details T-21 and T-22 in Chapter 4 for minimum spacing of street intersections along major streets and to other access limitations detailed in Chapter 4.8. "Tee" intersections are preferred over four-way intersections on interior local streets to reduce tuming conflicts at the intersections and to discourage outside traffic cutting through residential streets, thereby promoting liveable streets and neighborhoods. ^ ..... ,.:~.:,.A., .._,^~ pdor ..... 2.21 Graded roads with gravel base for off-site sewer access The following section is added to the Sewer Section: "Section 1.2.90ffsite Sewers An access easement must be provided for all sewer lines constructed off the site of the current development. Additionally, physical access to the sewer main line must be provided. At a minimum, a 20' x 20' graded pad must be provided at each manhole with a surface - either native ground, gravel or other material - dependant on the soil conditions. Unless the developer's engineer can provide proof, acceptable to the City Engineer, that the soft in the area is of sufficient character to support the maintenance vehicle load, the City Engineer may require additional improvements for access on a case-by-case basis." 2.22 Edge of pavement condition Standard ST-XXX is added showing edge of pavement condition in those circumstances where curb and gutter is not constructed. 2.26 Policy regarding use of USGS vs. City survey benchmarks Section 3.6.10 is modified as follows: Bench Mark - ~,S-S-da-t~,~ - If there is a USGS monument within 1/4 mile of the development, then the USGS monument shall be used as the benchmark. If a USGS monument is not located within that distance, then the use of a durable monument is allowed, r. ot .... :~'-" "" '"~ "':"' v~, ,,,~,., ,.,y ,, ,~ ,.,,,y - equations .....vv,.,, ,", will not be acceptable. The current updated version of the City of Bakersfield's "Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual" is available for download at the City's web site (www.ci.bakersfield.ca. us/dm). In the future, updates to the Manual will be done on a semi-annual basis - January 1 and July 1. Anything proposed during the review period between January 1 and June 30 would be adopted as soon as possible after July 1; anything proposed during the review period between July 1. and December 31 would be adopted as soon as possible after January 1. As soon as they are available, all .proposed updates will be posted to the web site in a section titled "Proposed Updates - January Cycle" or "Proposed Updates - July Cycle", as well as being mailed to the Public Work's Department's mailing list of engineers, contractors and developers. cc: reading file project file Marian P. Shaw 2.09 Right turn lane Sec. 4.8.5 CiW Streets - Turn Lanes 4.8.5.1 Arterial Streets. Left turn storage lanes are required to all streets and access points where left turn ingress is permitted along arterial streets. Right turn storage lanes are required at all streets and access points where one of the following criteria isomer: a. The 85th percentile speed is less than 45 MPH and the peak hour turning volume is over 200. b. The 85th percentile speed is 45 MPH or greater, the arterial is shown ultimately having 4 lanes on the Regional Traf~c Impact Fee (RTIF) system and the peak hour turning volume is over 50. c. The 85th percentile speed is 45 MPH or greater, the arterial is shown ultimately having 6 lanes on the RTIF system and the peak hour turning volume is over 25. 4.8.5.2 Collector streets. £eft and right turn storage lanes are required on all collector streets at ~rterial street intersections. Striping for left turn channelization shah be provided for any access leading to a development which, at build out, generates more than 50peak trips. Striping for left turn channelization shah be provided for all accesses on collectors where the traf~c volume presently exceeds 5, 000 ADT. 4.8.5.3 Design of left and right turn storage lanes shah comply with the applicable requirements of details in Figures T-4 through T-10, T-21, T-£2, T-27 and T-28. Bay tapers for turn lanes shah be 90feet in length for single turn lanes and 120feet in length for dual turn lanes. 60' bay tapers will be permitted on streets where the 85th percentile speed is 40 MPH or less, provided the turn lane is accessing either a driveway or a local street. 4.8.5.4 In the absence of turning volume data showing the need for greater storage the following minimum lengths shall be used: Dual l~eft and single right turn storage lanes from major street into another major street shall be designed for a minimum length of 200 feet (measured .from end of taper to limit line). Left and right turn storage into local streets or major private entrances shall be 150 feet minimum. Left and right turn storage into minor private entrances shall be 100 feet minimum on collector streets and 150 feet minimum on a~'terial streets. 4.8.5.5 Upon subdivision or other development which accesses.onto an arterial or collector street, the following minimum improvements will be required to provide left turn channelization, where insuf~cient width would otherwis.e be available due to existing or proposed street improvements. On and off site road improvements are required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn channelization into each street (or access poinO within the subdivision (or developmenO. Said channelization shah be developed to provide necessary transitions and turn lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question. NO TES: I I 1. lh~ deto# moy b~ used wheo slope cootrob~ts exist. II Detail T-G may be used undor arbor cooditioo~ ] ~ Flo~ Line 2. S~ City of 8okor~f~ld stoodord ST-l, r,~e '8' curb L and ~utt~ for ~11 appli~Ne d~m.~$ and note~ I * Unle~ directed or approval I othorwise by the City £ngbeer 5. See City of B~xersfidd standard $1-N for structural I pavement secti~ iMormotim. Lip ~ ~,,2, 4. c~eto to ~o~ o.12s' (~m) ~e by 20' (SO, m) I ~ deep weokened plone joint ot 15' (4.~m) aC o.5' (al~) ~¢o.~o. jolts at ~o' (2z ~) o.c. ~.~ 5. So,cut existbg edge o[ pavement os directed by the City Engineer. I I For Commercial Orivewoy, 6. Remove, reploce, or relocote ony necessery signs I see City of £okersfield per city requirements or ~s directed by the City £ngi~eer. ~ Z Any design de~otion$ from thb stendord must be standards a~ro~l in ~fftbg by the City Engb~r. L ~~_ Ro~ Lbe TABLE / The followin~ sholl oppl., for Concrete Structurol Thicknesses: T.I. Concrete Depth A8 Depth Subbase (AS) Depth 6'07.O- 0.5' (150mm) 0.,~4' (105mm) 0.34' (105mm) ,~ / 7'58.0- 0.6' (185mm) 0.34' (105mm) 0.54' (105mm) ~ . ~ ~ ~ 0.7' (215mm) 0.34' (105mm) 0.34' (105mm) ..~ ~ ~ ~0.5 - 0.8' (23Omm) 0.34' (105mm) 0.50' (150mm) · ~ ~2.5 + 0.9' (260mm) 0.~4' O05rn~) 0.80' (245mm) I Vorio~ 2.0' - , - = = ~ = Existin9 A.o. Cio 95~ reloliw ~ Concrete Curb Subbase A Class 'A' -- ¢ompoct/on Concrete ,STANDARD RIGHT TURN LANE ~,~ INTO COMMERCIAL OR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ~ O~ BAKI~qI~ELD T-XX a~ ~:N~ PURLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Flt. ENAUE: ST-X)0~ 0~'~ 2/2/00 STANDARD o~,- EDGE CONDITION DETAIL PAVEMENT N.T.S, i i SECTION CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ST-XX)~ CALIFORNIA BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM' ~,\~,'Marian P. Shaw, Civil Engineer IV DATE: August 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Development Streamlining Committee Proposed Changes to Public Works Policy As a result of the work of the Development Streamlining Subcommittee of the Urban Development Committee, several changes in the City of Bakersfield's Public Works Department policies have been proposed. These changes are summarized as follows, but may be subject to change: 1.03 Requirement for creating a Maintenance District when filing a Tentative Map. The Bakersfield Municipal Code states as follows: If the formation of a maintenance district is required as a condition of approval of a subdivision map, the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the formation of the district, as set forth in Section 3.70.040. All such fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. (Ord. 3557 § 1, 1993) Public Works policy on this item shall be: Maintenance District formation fees will be required to be paid with the first plan check of improvement plans for the tentative tract. 2.01 Requirement for balanced phasing of Tentative Tracts Staff will revise the condition language normally used on tracts whose phasing may be out of balance with the required improvements as follows: The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced (or is to be balanced) with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefor, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of a final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow accountl The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's estimate. In'lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer. 2.11 Allow CELSOC to review and discuss proposed subdivision standard revisions In the future, updates to the Manual will be done on a semi-annual basis - January 1 and July 1. Anything proposed during the review period between January 1 and June 30 would be adopted as soon as possible after July 1; anything proposed during the review period between July 1 and December 31 would be adopted as soon as possible after January 1.. As soon as they are available, all proposed updates will be posted to the web site in a section titled "Proposed Updates - January Cycle" or "Proposed Updates - July Cycle", as well as being mailed to the Public Work's Department's mailing list of engineers, contractors and developers. 2.25 Use of non-radial property lines on cul-de-sacs and knuckles The ordinance currently reads as follows: 16.28.170 F. Lot Lines. The sidelines of all lots, so far as practicable, shall be at right angles .to the street which the lot faces, or radial or approxi- mately radial if the street is curved. Public Works policy on this item shall be: Right angle or radial side lot lin.~~are _.--- lines required so far as-practicable. Non-radial and non-perpendicular side~,lot may be used if the developer can show, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the requested non-radial or non-perpendicular side lot lines are a practical design alternative, that they will not unduly confuse or inconvenience the end user (home owner), and that there .is no adverse effect upon health, safety and welfare of the residents. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDING CHAPTER 16.38 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING THE MERGER OF PARCELS ~L~-~~ BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.38 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: CHAPTER 16.38 MERGER OF PARCELS SectiOn: 16.38.010 Property owner initiated merger of contiguous parcels. Section 16.38.010 Property owner initiated merger of contiguous parcels. Pursuant to Government Code section 66499.20%, a property owner owning contiguous parcels is authorized to merge those contiguous parcels without requiring the property to be reverted to acreage. Such merger shall be accomplished in accordance with the following procedures: A. The property owner shall file an application for merger with the city, submit evidence of title to all parcels to be affected, submit a proposed certificate of merger, and pay the processing fee established by resolution of the city council. B. The city engineer, or an authorized designee, shall consider and approve the application if is found that the parcel created-by the merger will conform to the requirements of this chapter. The city engineer, or an authorized designee, may impose conditions on merger approval in order to ensure compliance with this chapter, to retain, relocate or establish easements, and to protect the health, safety and welfare. C. The merger shall be evidenced by recording a certificate of merger which lists the parcel numbers affected and is signed by the city engineer. The certificate of merger shall be recorded concurrently with any deed of easement regarding the relocation Page 1 of 2 or elimination of applicable easements. The certificate of merger shall be recorded against each parcel that is merged. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. -oo00oo-- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNOILMEMBER ABSTAIN; COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:Isc S:~OUNClL~rds~ParcelMergersfinal.wpd Page 2 of 2 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: August 26, 1999 TO: Marian Shaw, CE IV - Subdivisions FROM: Stephen L. Walker, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Recommendation for Geometric Standard for Local Streets In light of your recent committee discussions concerning the subject topic we have researched the various source standards prepared by AASHTO and CalTrans. Based on our review we can recommend a policy concerning minimum radii and tangent requkements as follows: 1. Where the standard minimum radius for local streets of 500' is used, no tangent is required between reversing curves. 2. Where exceptions allow use of a minimum 300' radius, no tangent is required between reversing curves provided the delta for each curve does not exceed 10°, otherwise a minimum tangent of 100' shall be used. cc: PW Memo Files Traffic Engineering File - Local Street Curve_Tangent Policy.wpd SLW:BJD:bd S:\WPXPlanning\Local Street Curve_Tangent Policy.wpd JO' (gm) PARASOUC CURVE DETAIL TO BE USED ~/HERE FULL EXPANSION OF IltrERSECIION AS t-~o,c ~o~ ~, o~r,,,,~s r-,~ ~u T-~ STANDARD OE~L~ENr ~ P~mlZ~ LEFT ANO RIGHT TUaN LANaS PUBLIC AC~S LA~S ~E RE~IRED CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA 6-26 IGN MANUAL RI~VII~W DRAFT June 1999 the necessary removal or relocation of any public utilities, structures, trees or plants with the person or entity having ownership or control prior to commencing work Removal or relocations must be accomplished at no cost to the City. 6.8. 4. 7 Driveway profiles shall comply with the details in Figure T-25. Sec. 6.8.5 City Streets - Turn Lanes ~. 6.8. 5.1 glrterial Streets. Left turn storage lanes are required to all streets and access points where left turn ingress is permitted along arterial streets. Right turn storage lanes are required at all streets and access points where one of the following criteria is met: a. The 85th percentile speed is less than 45 MPH and the peak hour turning volume is over 200. b. The 85th percentile speed is 45 MPH or greater, the arterial is shown ultimately having 4 lanes on the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) system and the peak hour turning volume is over 50. c. The 85th percentile speed is 45 MPH or greater, the arterial is shown ultimately having 6 lanes on the RTIF system and the peak hour turning volume is over 25. 6. 8. $.2 Collector streets. Left and right turn storage lanes are required on all collector streets at arterial street intersections. Striping for left turn channelization shall be provided for any access leading to a development which, at build out, generates more than 50 peak trips. Striping for left turn channelization shall be provided for all accesses on collectors where the traffic volume presently exceeds 5,000 ADT. 6.8. 5.3 Design of left and right turn storage lanes shall comply with the applicable requirements of details in Figures T-4 through T-10, T-21, T-22, T-27 and T-28. Bay tapers for turn lanes shall be 90feet in length for single turn lanes and 120 feet in length for dual turn lanes. 60' bay tapers will be permitted on streets where the 85th percentile speed is 40 MPH or less, provided the turn lane is accessing either a driveway or a local street. 6.8.5.4 In the absence of turning volume data showing the need for greater storage the following minimum lengths shall be used: Dual l~eft and single right turn storage lanes from major street into another major street shall be designed for a minimum length of 200 feet (measured from end &taper to limit line). Left and right turn storage into local streets or major private entrances shall be 150 feet minimum. Left and right turn storage into minor private entrances shall be 100 feet minimum on collector streets and 150 feet minimum on arterial streets. 6.8.5.5 Upon subdivision or other development which accesses onto an arterial or collector street, the following minimum improvements will be required to provide left turn channelization, where insufficient width would otherwise be available due to existing or proposed street improvements. On and off site road improvements are required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn channelization into each street (or access point,) within the subdivision ('or development). Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and turn lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question. Sec. 6.8.6 Bus Turnout Bus turnouts and associated speed change lanes may will be required on future and existing bus routes at locations identified by Golden Empire Transit (GET) ~-~ ~t.~,, ~. ..... :~_~ ....... TAPER TABLE MEDIAN CURB RIGHT 'FI. W"'T ST* ,0 R ~7.00 R · 12+50.00 . . 5.00 R 17+72.50 55.00 L ;4 R 6.81 R 12+60.00 58.56 L 16+83.73 4.81 R 17+80.00 54.84 L ,8 R 6.25 R 12+70.00 57.64 L 16+88.7.3 4.25 R 17+87.50 54.38 L 9 R 5.31 R 12+80.00 56.21 L 16+9.3.73 5.31 R 17+95.00 5.3.59L ,0 R 4.00 R 12+90.00 54.56 L' 16+98.73 2.00 R 18+02.50 52.50 L ,0 L 1.00 R 13+00.00 52.87 L 17+08.7,3 1.00 L 18+32.50 47.50 L ,0 L 2.00 L 13+10.00 51.14 L 17+18.73 4.00 L 18+40.00 46.41 L ,9 L ,3.`31 L 13+20.00 49.`39 L 17+23.7.3 5.,31 L 18+47.50 45.62 L ;8 L 4.25 L 13+30.00 47.75 L 17+28.73 6.25 L 18+55.00 45.16 L ;4 L ~-.81 L 1`3+40.00 46.47 L 17+`3`3.7,3 6.81 L 18+62.50 45.00 L ~0 L 5.00L 1`3+50.00 45.70 L 17+38.73 ~.00 L 13+60.00 45.24 L -- SAWCUT AS --JOINT SEALER DIRECTED BY THE !L CITY ENGINEER. 1" VARIES 2' ,// ~ /EXISTING : z '6" PAVEMENT - 0.25 SUBGRADE COMPACTED SUBGRADE CLASS CONCRETE CURB 9"THK MIN. CLASS "A" NOTE: CONCRETE CONCRETE TO HAVE 1/8" WIDE BY 2" DEEP WEAKENED NOTE: PLANE dOINT © 15' O.C. REMOVE AND REPLACE SIGNS AND 1/2" EXPANSION dOINTS 90' O.C. PER CITY ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS TYPICAL.SECTION A-A DETAIL NO SCALE HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 600-3 July 1. 1995 / Figure 601.3C Basic .Structural Elements of the Roadway - Z~ - ol  i~ v v PLOWED: 0~/29/~995 ~ r~LC Oate Oeec ~-29-199~ COUN~ Or , 0CS~CaC0 8~: STATE OF CALIFORNIA TYPE "A" P~TE NO. ".~.~. DEVELOPMENT SECONDARY HIGHWAY · .~ STANDARD LOT SIZE: ~ 5 < 20 ACRES.  C~CC~[O BY: 22 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (661) 326-3'/24 PAUL M. ROJAS. DIRECI'OR · CITY EIqGINEER DRAFT September 2, 1999 To Whom It May Concern Subject: Sewer Standards .. Manholes and Laterals Due to maintenance and operational problems, sewer laterals have not been allowed to connect into sewer lines of 15" diameter or more. However, as a result of the .work being done by the Subdivision Streamlining Technical Subcommittee, this limit has been revised to sewer mains of greater than 18" diameter. This criteria will also be used as the indicator as to when a PVC-lined manhole is required. Therefor, the current policy of the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department is that sewer laterals may not connect to sewer mains of greater than 18" diameter. However, sewer laterals may connect directly to sewer manholes regardless of the size of the sewer main. Additionally, all manholes for sewer lines larger than 18" in diameter shall be PVC-lined. This will include any manhole added to an existing sewer line larger than 18" in diameter for the purposes of connecting a new sewer lateral or new sewer system. Very truly yours, RAUL M. ROJAS Public Works Director S:\Policies\dra ft2Sewer Laterals.wpd 7-2.02 SANITARY SEWER (PVC LINED RCP). Reinforced concrete pipe shall conform to the provisions in Section 65, "Reinforced Concrete Pipe", of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. RCP shall contain a PVC lining as specified in these special provisions. RCP shall meet ASTM C 76 for strength, ASTM C 361 or AWWA C302 except test pressure shall be 5 psi for rubber gaskets. Pipe shall be wet cast, vibrated and steam or water cured. Joints shall be bell and spigot design with a contained O-ring gasket, unless otherwise noted. The D-Load is indicated on the plans for each given length of pipe. The D-Load shall be clearly marked on each section of pipe. Except as otherwise designated by classification on the plans or in the specifications, joints for culvert and drainage pipes shall conform to the plans or specifications for standard joints. Hydrostatic tests specified by Section 65-1.08, "Laying Siphon and Pressure Pipe", of the Standard Specifications will not be required. Reinforced concrete pipe shall have rubber gasketed joints conforming to Section 65-1.06B, "Rubber Gasketed Joints", of the Standard Specifications. Reinforced Concrete carrier pipe in casing - Reinforced Concrete carrier pipe inside casing pipe shall be smooth outside walled with no bells. PVC Lining. The PVC liner shall be Amer-Plate T-Lock as manufactured by Ameron Protective' Lining Division., or approved equal by the Engineer. Alternates will be considered after the award and execution of the contract. Alternates shall be submitted to the Engineer in writing. PVC liner shall be cast into the wall of the RCP and shall cover 360° of the pipe. All work for and in connection with the installation of the lining in concrete pipe and field sealing and welding of joints shall be done in strict conformity with all applicable specifications, instructions and recommendations of the lining manufacturer. 1.e. Installation of Lining. Installation of the lining, including preheating of sheets in cold weather and the welding of all joints, shall be done in accordance with the recommendations of the liner manufacturer. Coverage of the lining shall not be less than 360°. The lining shall be installed with the locking extensions running parallel with the longitudinal axis of the pipe. The lining shall be held snugly in place against inner forms. Locking extension shall terminate not more than 1-1/2 inches.(38 mm) from the end of the inside surface of the pipe section. Joint flaps when used shall extend approximately 4 inches (I00 mm) beyond the end of the inside surface. Concrete poured against lining shall be vibrated, spaded or compacted in a careful manner so as to protect the lining and produce a dense, homogenous concrete, securely anchoring the locking extensions into the concrete. In removing forms, care should be taken to protect the lining from damage. Sharp instruments shall not be used to pry forms from lined surfaces. When forms are removed, any nails that remain in the lining shall be pulled, without tearing the lining, and the resulting holes clearly marked. All nail and tie holes and all cut, tom and seriously abraded areas in the lining shall be patched. Patches made entirely with welding strip shall be fused to the liner over the entire patch area. Larger patches may consist of smooth liner sheet applied over the damaged area with adhesive. All edges must be covered with welding strip fused to the patch and the sound lining adjoining the damaged area. Hot joint compounds, such as coal tar, shall not be poured or applied to the lining. The contractor shall take all necessary measures to prevent damage to installed lining from equipment and materials used in or taken through the work. 1.f Application to Concrete Pipe - Special Requirements. The lining shall be set flush with the inner edge of the bell or spigot end of a pipe section and shall extend to the opposite end or to approximately 4 inches (100 mm) beyond the opposite end depending upon the type of lining joint to be made with the adjoining concrete pipe. Wherever concrete pipe or cast-in-place structures protected with lining, join structures not so lined (such as brick structures, concrete pipe or cast-in-place structures with clay lining or clay pipe), the lining shall be extended over and around the end of the pipe and back into the structure for not less than 4 inches (100 mm). This protecting cap may be molded or fabricated from the lining material but need not be locked into the pipe. Where a pipe lateral (not of plastic lined concrete) is installed through lined concrete pipe, the seal between the lined portion and the lateral shall be per the manufacturer's recommendations. Care shall be exercised in handling, transporting and placing lined pipe .to prevent damage to the lining. No interior hooks or slings shall be used in lifting pipe. All handling operation shall be done with an exterior sling or with a suitable fork lift. On pipe having a 3600 liner coverage, the longitudinal edges of the sheet shall be butt welded. When pipe tubes are furnished, these are shop-welded joints. No pipe with damaged lining will be accepted until the damage has been repaired to the satisfaction of the engineer. l.g. Field Joints in Lining for Concrete Pipe. The joint between sections of lined pipe shall be prepared in the following manner: If required, the inside joint shall be filled"and carefully painted with cement mortar in such a manner that the mortar shall not, at any point, extend into the pipe beyond the straight line connecting the surfaces of the adjacent pipe sections. Pipe joints must be dry before lining joints are made. No joint shall be welded until the lined pipe or structure has been backfilled and 7 days have elapsed after compaction has been completed. All mortar and other foreign material shall be removed from lining surfaces adjacent to the pipe joint, leaving them clean and dry. Field joints in the lining at pipe joints may be either of the following described types: Typ_e P-1; The joint shall be made with a separate 4-inch (100-mm)joint strip and two welding strips. The 4-inch (100-mm)joint strip shall be centered over the joint, heat-sealed to the lining, then welded along each edge to adjacent liner sheets with a l-inch (25-mm) weld strip. The 4-inch (100-mm)joint strip shall lap over each sheet a minimum of 1/2 inch (13 mm). Ty~_e P-2; The joint shall be made with a joint flap with locking extensions removed and extending approximately 4 inches (100 mm) beyond the pipe end. The joint flap shall overlap the lining in the adjacent pipe section a minimum of I/2 inch (13 mm) and be heat-sealed in place prior to welding. The field joint shall be completed by welding the flap to the lining of the adjacent pipe using 1-inch (25-mm) weld strip. Care shall be taken to protect the flap from damage. Excessive tension and distortion in bending back the flap to expose the pipe joint during laying and joint mortaring shall be avoided. At temperatures below 50°F(10°C), heating of the liner may be required to avoid damage. The joint flap or strip on beveled pipe shall be trimmed to a width (measured from the end of the spigot) of approximately 4 inches (100 mm) for the entire circumferential length of the lining. All welding of joints is to be in strict conformance with the specifications and instructions of the lining manufacturer. Welding shall fuse both sheets and weld strip together to provide a continuous joint equal in corrosion resistance and impermeability to the liner plate. Hot-air welding tools shall provide effluent air to the sheets to be joined at a temperature between 500° and 600°F (260° and 316°C). Welding tools shall be held approximately 1/2 inch (13 mm) from and moved back and forth over the junction of the two materials to be joined. The welding tool shall be moved slowly enough as the weld progresses to cause a small bead of molten material to be visible along both edges and in front of the weld strip. The following special requirement shall apply when the liner coverage i-~'360 degrees: When groundwater is encountered the lining joint shall not be made until pumping of groundwater has been discontinued for at least three days and no visible leakage is evident at the joint. When welding the downstream side of a joint strip or flap, do not weld 6 to 8 inches (150 to 200 mm) at the pipe invert to provide relief of potential future groundwater build-up. 1.h. Application to Cast-in-Place Concrete Structures - Special Requirements. Liner sheets shall be closely fitted and properly secured to the inner forms. Sheets shall be cut to fit curved and warped surfaces using a minimum number of separate pieces. Unless otherwise shown on the plans,, the lining shall be returned at least 3 inches (75 nun) at the surfaces of contact between the concrete structure and items not of concrete (including manhole frames, gate guides, clay pipe or brick manholes and clay or cast iron pipes). The same procedure shall be followed at joints where the type of protective lining is changed or the new work is built to join existing unlined concrete. At each return, the returned liner shall be sealed to the item in contact with the plastic-lined concrete. If the liner cannot be sealed with adhesive because of the joint at the return being too wide or rough or because of safety regulations, the joint, space shall be densely caulked with lead wool or other approved caulking material to a depth of 2 inches (50 mm) and finished with a minimum of 1 inch 925 mm) of an approved corrosion resistant material. 1.i. Testing and Repairing Damaged Surfaces. After the pipe is installed in the trench, all surfaces covered with lining, including welds, shall be tested with an approved, contractor supplied, electrical holiday detector (Tinker & Rasor Model No. AP-W with power pack or approved equal) with the instrument set between 18,000 and 22,000 volts. All welds shall be physically tested by a nondestructive probing method. All patches over holes, or repairs to the liner wherever damage has occurred, shall be accomplished in accordance with Section 7-2.02(1 .e) para. 8 above. Each transverse welding strip which extends to a lower edge of the liner will be tested by the purchasing agency. The welding strips shall extend 2 inches (50 mm) below the liner to provide a tab. A 10-pound (5 kg) pull will be applied to each tab. The force will be applied normal to the face of the structure by means ora spring balance. Liner adjoining the welding strip will be held against the concrete during application of the force. The 10- pound (5 kg) pull will be maintained if a weld failure develops, until no further separation occurs. Defective welds will be retested after repairs have been made. Tabs shall be trimmed away neatly by the installer of the liner after the welding strip has passed inspection. Inspection shall be made within 2 days after the joint has been completed in order to prevent tearing the projecting weld strip and consequent damage to the liner from equipment and materials used in or taken-through the work. Shop Drawings. Contractor shall submit manufacturer information showing dimensional, material and joint criteria to the Engineer for review. PAYMENT. Reinforced Concrete Pipe shall be paid for at the contract unit price per lineal foot, which price shall include full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools and equipment and for doing all work in installing sewer pipe as specified. Partial payment shall be administered as follows: 65% - at the completion of excavation and placement of pipe 20% - at the completion of backfill and compaction 10% - at the completion of the various tests required according to the various types of pipe 5% - at the completion of pipe cleaning and video inspection. No additional compensation will be made if an adjustment, when directed by the Engineer, of as much as one (1) foot is made to the elevation of the pipe flowline. 7-2.03 BORED/JACKED PIPE. Casing shall be installed so as to prevent formation of waterways underground. It shall have even bearing throughout its length and shall slope toward one end. Space between casing and pipeline shall be backfilled with (2) sack slurry. The strength of pipe designated in the plans or specifications is determined for vertical load only any additional strength required by Boring/Jacking operations shall be furnished by the Contractor. The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval all plans of boring/jacking operations prior to boring or jacking. Boring/jacking operations shall be conducted in a safe and efficient manner, consistent with current accepted procedures. Water boring shall not be permitted. The casing pipe shall be jacked with such precision that will allow the placement of the pipeline to the line and grade as indicated on the Plans. Upon completion of the installation of the casing and installation of the pipeline to grade, the void between the casing or RC pipe and the excavation shall be completely filled with (2) sack slurry. Pipe laid within the jacking pit area, but not within the casing or structures, shall be cradled with concrete. It is the Contractor's responsibility to maintain a safe operation at all times. Should the tunnel heading operations result in dangerous or unreasonable sloughing of each material which may jeopardize the safety of workers or the stability of the soil and roadway above, the Contractor shall furnish and install breastboarding and/or face closure with sufficient jacks to inhibit the sloughing and/or closing the work face. The Contractor, before resuming work, shall furnish the Engineer with a detailed plan of proceeding with the work, for his review and approval. Any and all expenses therefor will be considered as included in the bid price and no additional compensation will be made therefor. PAYMENT. The contract price paid per linear foot for Bored/Jacked Pipe shall include full compensation for furnishing the RCP, excavating, boring/jacking, furnishing and placing backfill material, constructing jacking pits and backfilling all pits after the pipe is bored/jacked, and all incidentals necessary to boring/jacking the pipe, complete in place, as specified. 7-2.04 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PLASTIC (PVC) SMOOTH WALL. PVC pipe shall conform to the provisions in Section 64, "Plastic Pipe", of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. Extensions of sewer lines shall conform to Section 15-2.05C of the Standard Specifica{ions, dated July 1992. (P¥C) Smooth Wall shall be a minimum of SDR 3S. Pipe and fittings shall be homogeneous throughout and free from cracks, holes, foreign inclusions or other injurious defects and shall be manufactured and tested in accordance with ASTM F-679 (T-I wall). Series 10 permalock storm drain pipe will not be accepted. Gaskets shall meet the requirements of ASTM F477 and be molded into a circular form or extended to the proper section and then spliced into circular form and shall be made of a properly cured high grade elastomeric compound. The basic polymer shall be natural rubber, synthetic elastomer or a blend of both. The lubricant used for assembly of gasket joints shall have no detrimental effect on the gasket or on the pipe. Contractor shall have the manufacturer furnish a certificate of conformance to these specifications. Manhole connections shall include sealing gaskets similar to joint gaskets or a pre-formed, self-bonding, self- sealing plastic gasket recommended by the pipe manufacturer and approved by the Engineer. DEFLECTION MEASUREMENT OF PLASTIC PIPE. Thirty (30) days at, er tM.completion of laying pipe the Contractor shall measure pipe deflection by pulling a go=no=go five percent ($%) mandrel. The mandrel diameter will be calculated using the following formula: Mandrel Diameter = Base Pipe I.D.-(Y/100 x Base Pipe I.D.) Where Y = Allowable Deflection in percent, five percent (S%) Base I.D. = Actual inside pipe diameter (provided by pipe manufacturer) The mandrel shall have an odd number of vanes with seven (7) minimum. Any section of installed pipe that fails the mandrel test shall be excavated, re=backfilled, re-compacted and retested until the mandrel test can be passed. Re-rounding will not be allowed. PAYMENT. Full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals and for doing all the work involved for installing PVC Pipe shall be considered as included in the c. ontract price paid for Abandon Sewer and Manholes and no additional compensation will be made therefor. 7=2.05 MANHOLES (PVC LINED) Portland cement concrete manholes shall conform, in design, materials, and construction, to the provisions of Sections S 1 and 70=1.02 H of the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions. Pre-cast manholes shall conform to a combinations of the details shown on the plans and manufacturers details. Contractor shall submit shop drawings for approval by the Engineer prior to fabrication or installation. Cast in Place Manholes shall conform to the City of Bakersfield Standards S-7 and S=8, and details shown on the plans. Concrete manholes shall be lined on the interior in its entirety (including base and channels) with an approved PVC lining system as specified herein in Section 7-2.02. The manhole precast cylinder, taper, and eccentxic cone sections shall meet the strength requirement of ASTM C-478. Each successive manhole section shall be set on a bed of Portland Cement grout or "Kent Seal" to make a watertight joint, which will allow the liner to be sealed between joints. Precast units shall be set plumb. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT. The contract unit price paid per each for Manholes (PVC Lined) shall be full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals including excavation, backfill, metal frame and cover and lining. Cast in place manholes constructed in lieu of precast manholes shall be paid for at the contract price paid for Sewer Manhole (P¥C lined), Precast, and no additional compensation will be made therefor. BAKERSFIELD CITY OF BAKERSFIELD BASIC INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS (as of October 1999) The City of Bakersfield has the following mandatory insurance requirements for construction projects: I. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY - must have limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence - coverage must be on an occurrence basis (versus claims made) - must contain an additional insured endorsement (see attachment) naming the City, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds. II. AUTO LIABILITY - must have limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence - must provide coverage for owned, non-owned and hired autos III.. WORKERS' CO)-~ENSATION - must provide for statutory coverage - must contain employers liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000.000 - contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement (see attachment) in favor' of ihe City, it's mayor, council officers, agents, employees and volunteers. In addition: The City is. to be provided at least 30 days written notice of policy cancellation or ii'there are any material changes .in the policy language or terms. All policies provided must be primary insurance. All policies must have a Bests' inkurance rating of A:VII or better. If any of the work is subcontracted, all insurance requirements as set forth above are required of the subcontractor. NOTE Listed above are minimum requirements currently in effect and are subject to change. The City of Bakersfield reserves the right to 'change, alter or modify the requirements based on the elements of a particular project. Attached is a sample of a properly completed certificate of insurance, including endorsements. If there are any questions, contact Scott Manzer at the Office of Risk Management. - City of Bakersfield · Office of Risk Management · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3738 · (661) 852-2030 ' ~[nsu r' _ (05) . FIHl~t [;I:KIIFIGAIE I~ I~UEU A,.~ A MA~EI~ OF | . an ce, znc. I ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE ' I HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR IBakBrsfi e] d, ~A 93]09 L ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDEP BY THE POLICIES BELOW COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE msu,ED R~.~t~] ~.0 COUP,Ny Nal:iona] Indemnity Company A · Construction Company . Inc. DBA SrC~ 0 [ ~ coap,ay Compensation Company : B P.O. Box . RIsKMGMT Bakersfield, CA ' C COMPANY D INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIRCATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTNN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN 'IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. CO iEXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF 8UCHPOLI¢IES. UMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAJD CLAIMS. LTR: TY~E OF INSURANCE POIJCY NUMBER POLJCY EFFECTIV~ ? ' : POUCY EXPIRATION i ~ OArS ~M~OOffYI OArS (M~eOOffy) i UMrrs : -------- COMM~RC~ GEN~ UAmUW : GENE~ ^~R~CaT~ $ 2,000 ~ 000 ~:::.~ . ~ ...................................................... · Y':'::::~ : CLAIMS MADE i X i OCCUR PRODUCTS- COMP/DP AGO $ A :-~;~ ....... ' ........ : 2,000,000 : :: OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT ?" .... 583i00 11/0i/i998 11/0i/i999 ................................................................. ~ ......... .~. ........ PERSO~tAL&AOVI~URY $ I 000 000 ~ ~ EACH OCCURaE~CE $ 1,000,000 i ....... i ..................................................... FIRE DAMAGE (A~y o~e ~e) $ ~ ................................. 50~000 : AUTOMOBILE UABILrrY ~ -------------- MED EXP (Any o~e ~n) $ 5,00( : ? ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ X ~ ~ OWNED ^UTOS 1,000,00( A : SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY : X "~DAUTOS '583100 il/01/1998 11/01/1999 ("~) $ ""~"? NON-OWNED AUTOS 8DOILY INJURY : (Per accident) $ ~ UABIUTY PROPERTY DAMAGE $ : ANY AUTO ? AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIOENT $ EACH ACCIDENT $ ? occ .cl' T'l'. ;1 ' 000,000 A X U"B.ELU.O . 583i02 ii/0i/i998 ii/0i/i999 i AGGREGATE........... :"~ ........... 8 THE~aO.mE~Om ........ ! "'.83090~ 09/12/1999 09/12/2000 ; ....................................................................................... ..av~m~sax~cUT~ '~cu ~ ' · ~ EL EAC~ ACC,D~NT $ 1,000,000 O~:E~S *mE: EXC[ ! i EL D~SEASE - POUCY UU~ ~ $ 1,000,000 ~ ~ i ELD,S~^SE-~EM.~OYEE. $ 1,000 000 2ity Of Bakersfield, its ma¥o~, council officers agents and employees as additional insured as ~espects: ' , ~aive~ of Subrogation applies Workers Compensation- attached '~i: ................ ED BEFORE THE E~IEA~ON DATE THEREOF, THEIS.~U~NG COMPs%WY WILL~ MA~L C~ty of Bakersfield 1505 Truxtun Ave. ......... .v-......,.....:...:.~.,,.:.> :::::::...~:...:.::.::::..::~....::::::::...~:.. ~?: ::: .~...::~ :: ::::.:::. ::::: :: .::; POLICY NUMBER: 583100 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY NAMED INSURED: ': Construction Company TIHS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAI~ INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART. SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Bakersfield, its mayor, council, officiers, agents and employees 1505 Tmxtun Ave Bakersfield, Ca. 93301 (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to-include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of "your work" for that insured by or for you. CG 20 10 1 l 85 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc. 1984 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 4-84) WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHER8 ENDORSEMENT-CALIFORNIA We have the rtght to recover our payments from anyone Ilab~ity for an Injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our dght against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only .to the extent that you perform work under a written conlmct that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) · You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneral~on of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be * * * of the California workers' compensation premium othenvise due on such remuneration. Schedule Person or Organization ~ Job Descflpflon City of Bakersfield, its mayor, council, .'.-. '. ' .' Jol~ officers, agents and employees 1505 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, Ca. 93301 This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless other,vise stated. (The Information bel(:~v is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequest to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective 09/12/1999 Policy No. .... 1830903 Endorsement No. Premium $ / / Insurance Company Fremont Compensation Company ~..,ountersig -~ . -...._~" ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.32.100 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNIClPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION MAP SURVEY REQUIREMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 16.32.1 O0 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 16.32.100. Survey requirements- Monuments 16.32.100 Survey requirements- Monuments A. At the time of making the survey for the final tract or parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform with the standards described in Section 877t of the-Business and Professions Code so that another engineer or surveyor may readily retrace the survey. B. Such engineer or surveyor shall set monuments as follows: 1. Set city standard monuments and encasements at all intersections of street centerlines, beginning and ending of all curves.on streets within the subdivision and at the .ir~tel~se.qtion.of the centerline of the streets .an.d.th.e.su. bd. iy.isi.on, b~.n. dary,!!i~i~i~:. ~ i~;~~~i~;~i~i~(~i~6~(~i?~i~;On all curved streets, a sufficient number of monuments shall be set so that connecting chords shall be wholly within the street roadway between curbing. The engineer or surveyor shall measure the vertical elevation based upon data approved by the city engineer, data for each city standard monument set and shall provide a record of this data to the city engineer. 2. Set two inch iron pipe twenty-four inches long, filled with concrete and properly tagged, or with a two inch by two inch by twelve inch redwood stake driven into the center and properly tagged or equal as approved by the city engineer, at all angle points and beginning and ending of all curves on the exterior boundary of the subdivision. All boundary monuments shall be in place prior to recordation of the map. The city engineer may, by a field survey, satisfy himself that all monuments actually exist and that their positions are correctly shown. Depth of boundary monuments shall be not less than six inches or more than thirty inches. Page I of 3 3. Set two inch by two inch by twelve inch redwood stakes with tag, iron rod with cap or iron pipe with cap and properly tagged at all angle points and beginning and ending of all curves on the boundary of each Iot?~ii~i~i, which angle point is not covered in subsection B. 1 or 2 above. For front lot i~L~i~i!~'~rners, reference points, consisting of "penny" tags epoxied in place together with chisel marks on the top of curbs, may be substituted for the required redwood stake, iron rod or iron pipe. For rear lot corners of double-frontage lots, reference points, consisting of concrete nails and tags mounted on the rear masonry wall, on the lot side, at a visible elevation, may be substituted for the required redwood stake, iron rod or iron pipe. 4. When any of the above-described boundary points fall in a concrete sidewalk, curb, wall, coping, etc., such points shall be'marked with a concrete nail and tag. 5. All monuments in subsection B. 1 and 2 above shall be so set as to insure an unobstructed sight between adjacent monuments, whenever feasible, and in no case shall the distance between monuments exceed two thousand seven hundred feet, unless prior approval is obtained from the City Engineer. 6. All monuments shall be permanently marked with. the certificate number of the.engineer or surveyor setting it, preceded by the letters "R.~C.E.i' or "L.S." respectively, as the case may be. 7. The character, type and position of all monuments and encasements shall be noted on the final map. If a monument is replaced, indicate type and condition of monument found and the date of replacement. 8. A traverse of the boundaries of the map and of all the IotSiiiii~!~!~ and blocks must close within a limit of error not in excess of one foot in twenty thousand feet. 9. All distances must be expressed on the map to the nearest hundredths of a foot. 10. Any monuments or stakes disturbed by the improvements shall be reset. Where no streets are to be.improved, the subdivider shall post a faithful performance bond to guarantee the setting of all the above stakes and monuments. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... 000 .......... Page 2 of 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of theCity of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERCARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attomey By: CARL HERNANDEZ III Deputy City Attorney CH:lsc S:~COUNCIL~Ords\16.32.100Amend.wpd Page 3 of 3 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: SEPTEMBER '15, 1999 TO: MARIAN P. SHAW, CE IV, SUBDIVISION ENGINEER FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: STREAMLINING PROCESS, FOUR-WAY LOCAL INTERSECTIONS As requested, Traffic Engineering has reviewed the Subdivision Design Manual section regarding four-way local intersections. To clarify the intent of Traffic Engineering in promoting the design of more neighborhood friendly subdivisions and eliminate the unnecessarily strong word usage, I propose the following. This should be easier for the designers to understand and incorporate in their subdivision designs. 5.4.1.5 All streets entering upon any given street shall have their centerlines directly opposite each other or separated by at least 150 feet. Attention is directed to details T-21 and T-22 in Chapter 6 for minimum spacing of street intersections along major streets and to other access limitations detailed in Chapter 6.8. ~Tee"intersections are preferred over four-way intersections on interior local streets to reduce turning conflicts at the intersections and to discourage outside traffic cutting through residential streets, thereby promoting liveable streets and ighbo h ds ...... ~.:L:.~.~ .._,___ p · _ .... ,:_~.: .... ,__.~ .~:..:...__ .~: ........ ~. .... : ..... ~_: ...... t.~ '-:. cc: Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Ryan Starbuck, CE III, Traffic Engineering PW Memo 'Files Traffic Engineering File -.Memo. Section_5.4.1.5.revised.wpd slw: S:\VVP~SUBOVMAN~Memo. Section_5.4.1.5.revised.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.22.010 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELA'FING TO PREPARATION OF FINAL PARCEL MAPS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 16.22.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 16.22.010. Preparation 16.22.010 Preparation. A. The final parcel map shall be prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer authorized to do land surveying or a licensed land surveyor. a. Such map may ~:_~iiiiibe bas~d~~p~r~a~!~.e.~.~s....u~.e....y~a.~.~.e...~.~i~...n..~...~..~...n.~..f.9~..r..~!.!~ with the Land Surveyor's Act ~~!;~!~!!~?~i~~!i~~~~ ~ or-be compiled from recorded or filed data when sufficient survey information exists on filed maps to locate and retrace the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map if the location of at least one of these boundary lines can be established from an existing monumented line. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... 000 .......... Page 1 of 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: BOB PRICE, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: CARL HERNANDF? III Deputy City Attorney CH:lsc S:~COUNClL',Ords\16.22.010Amend.wpd Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: G regoryJ. Klim ko, FinanceDi re cto r/~,~/~/ DATE: August 4, 2000 SUBJECT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIEN NOTIFICATION The City currently has 17,570 parcels spread through 22 special assessment districts. The vast majority of these districts were established at the request of developers or builders. The City's Municipal COde Section 13.08.060 adopted by ordinance No. 3674 on September 27, 1995 requires notices to buyers of all real property subject to special assessment liens with few exceptions. The ordinance states in part, "...the nature and amount of all existing and/or proposed special assessment liens regarding the property shall be set forth plainly and concisely." The Board of Realtors recommended disclosure statement form and some of the forms provided by developers/builders provide for compliance. However, some builders disclosure statements merely disclose existence of a special assessment lien and direct the purchaser to contact the City Finance Department for specific information. Attached are documents which affect this subject with specific page references: Memorandum from Donald Anderson Pg. 1 Board of Realtors Disclosure Statement Pg. 3 Ordinance No. 3674 Pg. 4 Kyle Carter Homes Disclosure Statement Pg. 6, 12 Coleman Homes Disclosure Statement Pg. 27 Castle & Cooke Notice of Assessment: ReSidential Pg. 31 Commercial Pg. 33 GJK/dwb August 4, 2000 (10:42am) S:\Darrin\Gregory~Blank - UDC -SpAssmtlnfo.wpd BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM To: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Direc for From: Donald M. Anderson, Senior Real ProperW Agent Subject: Ordinance No. 3674 - B.M.C. 13.08.060 - Spedal Assessment District Liens Per your request, I investigated how the Bakersfield real estate community complies with the above referenced ordinance. First, I meet with Polly A. Hamm, Executive Officer of the Bakersfield Association of Realtors (B.O.R.). She was gracious enough to provide an original of the "Disclosure of Special Assessment District Liens" used to comply with the City Ordinance No. 3674. This form was developed by the City Attorney's Office with input from the Bakersfield real estate community. Most Realtors are members of the B.O.R. which advises/encourages compliance with all applicable rules, laws, and/or ordinances of any kind or nature. Ms. Harem said she heard of incidents where nonmembers did not comply with our ordinance and contacted the City Attorney's Office for assistance and was told the City is not the enforcement agency. Then I contacted three large local builders: Kyle Carter Homes; Coleman Homes; and Castle & Cooke and they all said they complied with the City's Ordinance. Further, they faxed me their disclosure forms used for this purpose. Lastly, I spoke with Frank Hinmon, co-owner of Prudential America West, one of the largest Bakersfield real estate offices. He requires his agents to provide all applicable disclosures including the "Assessment District Disclosure" regardless if a property is in the City or County. Currently, he is working with the B.O.R. to modify the existing disclosure form to make it suitable for both City and County areas. Also, he has previously contacted the City regarding out-of-town builders who were not complying with the ordinance and the City did nothing. In summary, it appears the majority of Realtors and builders are making a good faith effort to comply with the City's ordinance, but there are some out-of-town builders and Realtors who are not. The issue seems to be lack of an enforcement agency and that it is not metropolitan .wide. Please advise if you need anything further. / · Vlake~field Association of Realtors http://www.bakersfieldrealtor.com/index.html BAKERSFIELD AssoCiation of REALTORS® REAL'I'oi~i, The Objectives of the Bakersfield Association of.REAL TORS® To unite those engaged in the recognized branches of the real estate profession for a beneficial influence upon the profession. To promote and maintain high standards of conduct in the real estate profession as expressed in the REAI, TOR,S® Code of Ethics. Provide a unified medium for real estate owners whereby their Mailing Address: interests may be safeguarded and advanced 4800 Stockdale Hwy, #100 P.O. Box 9338 Further the interests of home and other real property ownership. Bakersfield, CA USA 93389-9338 (661) 635-2300 You may E-mail us at Association E-mail I of,1 7/25/00 10:15 AM DISCLOSURE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIENS (Pursuant to Cailfomia Civil Code Section 1102.6s) LOCAL OPTION REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS: THIS STATEMENT IS A DISCLOSURE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE NUMBER 3674. AMENDING SECTION 13.08.060 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1995. IT IS NOT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY THE SELLERS(Si OR ANY AGENTS{Si REPRESENTING ANY PRINCIPAL{Si IN THIS TRANSACTION, AND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR WARRANTIES THE PRINCIPAL(S} MAY WISH TO OBTAIN. I SELLERS INFORMATION The Seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not a warranty, prospective Buyers may rely on this information in deciding whether and on what terms to 13urc:hase the subject property. Seller hereby authorizes any agent{si representing any principal(si in this transaction to provide a copy of this statement to' any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the proDerty. THE FO~'LOWING ARE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S) AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE AGENT(S), IF ANY. THIS INFORMATION IS A DISCLOSURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIENS 1. [] The property is subject to one or more Special Assessment District Liens, as set forth on the attached copy of the Kern County Property Tax Bill. 2. [] The property is subject to one or more Special Assessment District Liens as follows: {Describe nature and amount of lien{s}}: 3. [] Other (explain): Buyer should contact the City of Bakersfield ~t (661) 326-3058 or the County of Kern at (661) 861-2335 for further Information concerning the ai~ove. Seller certifies that the information herein is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the date signed by the Seller. Seller Date Seller Date I1 - BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S} MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND/OR INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYER{S} AND SELLER(S) WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE/INSPECTIONS/DEFECTS. I/WE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT Seller Date ~ Buyer Date Seller Date Buyer Date Agent. By Date (Broker Representing Seller) Agent By .Date JUL-25-2000 13:11 635 2317 P.03 ORDINANCE NO. 3674 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.08.060 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOTICE TO BUYERS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIENS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 13.08.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 13.08.060 Notice to. Bpyer, A. Delivery of Local Addendum TDS. All transfarrors (sellers) of real property (including developers) subject to any special assessment district liens in th~ City of Bakersfield shall deliver to the buyer a completed Local Addendum Transfer Disclosure Statement pursuant to California Civil Code section 1102.6(a), in which the nature and amount of all eXisting.and/or proposed special assessment liens regarding the property shall be set forth plainly and concisely. This requirement applies to transfers by sale, exchange, installment land sale contracts (as defined in Civil Code section 2985}, lease with option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground.lease coupled with improvements, unless the transfer is exempt as set forth in Paragraph C below. If the seller is unaware of the exact amount of the special assessment lien, the seller shall estimate tile lien amount based on information and knowledge available or known to seller at the time of the disclosure. B. Time of Delivery. In the case of transfers of new one-to-four unit residential properties wherein the transfarror is a developer or original builder and the residentiar property has not previously been occupied, the Local Addendum Transfer Disclosure Statement she be delivered to the buyer at or prior to the time the buyer enters into a contract for the sale of the property. In all other cases, theLocalAddendumTransferDisclosureStatementshallbedelivered to the buyer within five days after entering into a contract for the 'sale of the property. C. Exempt Transfers. Transfers made pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 11010.4 {sales of new I-4 unit residential.properties where no public report is required) shall no~t be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance. However, each of the remaining categories of exempt transfers described in California Civil Code Section 1102.01, as set forth below, shall be exempt transfers from the requirements of this ordinance, to wit: 1. Transfers pursuant to Court Order (such as probate sales, sales by bankruptcy trustee, otc.); 2. Transfers by foreclosure (including a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure and a transfer by a beneficiary who has acquired the property by foreclosure or Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure); 3. Transfers by a fiduciary in the course of the administration of a decedent's estate, guardianship, conservetorship, or trust; 4. Transfers from one co-owner to one or more other co-owners; 5. Transfers made to a spouse or to a direct blood relative; 8. Transfers between spouses in connection with a dissolution of marriage or similar proceeding; 7. Transfers by the State Controller pursuant to the Unclaimed 'Property Law; 8. Transfers as a result of a failure to pay property taxes; 9. Transfers or exchanges to or from any governmental entity. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. TOTRL P. 03 ,~r 07/28/00 11:06 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~001 KYLE ,., CARTER / July 28, 2000 De~ Mr. Anderson, · " As per our telephone conversation, I am faxing to:you one of our Short Disclosure Statements. We provide this disclosure to all of our customers. Every one of our communities have their'own Short Disclosure · Statement tlmt is tract Specific to their location. This document is researched and ~roduced by our legal d~partm, ent. If you lmve any questions please feel free to contact us regarding this matter. ' ercsa'Olson ' Sales Manager Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. 805/399-0239-fax 805/589-1425-3851 fruitvale.avenue.bakersfield, ca. 93'308 07/28/00 11:06 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HO~ES ~002 DISCLOSURE OF'SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIENS (Pursuant to California Civil Code Seotion 1102.6a) LOCAL OPTION REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF · KERN, STATE 0F CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS: THIS STATEMENT IS A DISCLOSURE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE wITH ORDINANCE NUMBER 3674. AMENDING SECTION 13,08,060 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1995. IT IS NOT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY THE SELLERS(S) OR ANY AGENTS(S) REPRESENTING ANY PRINCIPAL(S) IN THIS TRANSACTION, AND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR WARRANTIES THE PRINCIPAL(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN, SELLERS INFORMATION The Seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not a warranty, prospective Buyers may rely on this information in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the subject property, Seller hereby authorizes any agent(s) representing any principal{si in this transaction to provide a copy of this statement to any person or entity In Connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the property, THE FOLLOWING ARE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S) AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE AGENT(S), IF ANY, THIS INFORMATION IS A DISCLOSURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER, .SPECIAl ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIENe 1. [] The.property is subject to one or more Special Assessment District Liens, as set forth o'n the attached copy of the 19 - ~ Kern County Property Tax Bill. 2. [] The property is subject to one or more Special Assessment District Liens as follows: (Describe nature and amount of lien(s)): Buyer should contact the City of Bakersfield at (805) 32S-3058 or the County of Kern at (805).861-2335 for further information concerning the above. Seller certifies that the information herein is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the' date signed by the Seller. Seller Date Seller Date II BUYER(SI AND SELLER[S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND/OR INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPR!ATE PROVIS ONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S) WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE/INSPECTIONS/DEFECTS. I/WE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT Seller · Date · Buyer Date ~ Seller-- Date Buyer , Date __ Agent., : By (Broker Representing Seller) -Date .. Agent. (Broker Representing Buyer) By .Date A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE. IF YOUDESIRE LEGAL ADVICE,. CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY. 07/28/00 11:07 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~003 KYLE CARTER H.-O.M.E.S inc. SHORT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Tract 5921-1/Madison Grove Table of Contents Utilities 1 Schools 1-2 Elected Representatives 2-3 Taxes 3-4 Assessments 4-6 Supplemental Taxes 6 Soils 6 Easements 6 Future Development/Uses and Zoning 7 Construction & Sales Activity 7 Model Homes, Decorator and Landscaping Items 7 Carpeting 8 Brass Plumbing/Light Fixtures/Hardware. 8 Cable TV 8 Telephone Outlets 8 Smoke Detectors and Water Heaters 8-9 Drainage 9 Lot Variation 9 Perimeter Wall/Fences 9 Homes/Garages 10 Views-Open Spaces 10 Flood Hazard Zone 10 Seismic Compliance 10-11 Healthy House 11 Legal Documents 11-12 Plans and Prices 12 Neighboring Business Activity 12-13 Effective 11/03/99 i Published 11/17/99 07(~8/00 11:0.~. FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~004 Condition of Property 13 Warranty 13 Authority of Sales Agent(s) 13 Related Entities 13 Purchase Incentives 14 Signature Page 14 Map of Tract No. 5921-1 15 Zoning Map 16-17 Abandoned Well Exhibit Map 18 Attestation of Compliance re Smoke Detector & Water Heater in Accordance with Health & Safety Code § 13113.8(b) and § 19211 Appendix "A" Statutory Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement re Tract 5921-1 Appendix "B" Statutory Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement Appendix "C" Statutory Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationships (As required by California Civil Code §2079.16) Appendix "D" Effective ! 1/03/99 ii Published 11/17/99 ~,~ ....... 07~.~8/0~ ....... ~_1..~07 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~ 005 KYLE CARTER H.O.M.E.S inC. KYLE CARTER HOMES, INC. has prepared this short disclosure to inform purchasers and potential purchasers within Madison Grove Tract 5921-1 of the following information pertaining to this community. This information is subject to change and should not be considered absolute fact. For further and more accurate information please refer to the names and numbers listed with each disclosure. 1. UTILITIES Southern Califomia Gas Co. (800) 427-2200 PG&E - Electric (800) 743-5000 California Water Service (661) 396-2400 Pacific Bell (800) 310-2355 2. SCHOOLS Information regarding the public schools serving the Madison Grove community can be obtained from the following districts: Grades K-8: Norris School District Telephone: (661) 399-7987 6940 Calloway Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93312 Mr. Al Sandrini, Superintendent Grades 9-12: Kern High School District Telephone: (661) 82%3100 5801 Sundale, Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Bill Hatcher, Superintendent Currently, the best information available to Kyle Carter Homes, Inc., is that Madison Grove community students will be served by the following schools: Norris Elementary School (K-5) Centennial High School (9-12) 6940 Calloway Drive 8601 Hageman Road Bakersfield, California 93312 Bakersfield, California 93312 (661) 399-9591 (661) 588-8601 School Secretary: Cathy Wimberly Registrar: Jan Johns Principal: Sharron Wennihan Principal: Dave Olds Buyer's Initials I ? ........ 07/28/~,.._.~ld..Q~..FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOLES ~006 Norris Middle School (6-8) 6940 Calloway Drive Bakersfield, California 93312 (661) 399-5571 School Secretary: Sherryl WachOb Principal: Steve Shelton Homeowners should contact the appropriate school district office and schools for the most up-to-date information regarding placement at the public schools as attendance should be verified due to periodic changes. New high schools in particular are being added periodically and districts, therefore, change with the completion and opening of new schools. In addition, information regarding transportation for school students can be provided by the appropriate districts. 3. ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES Homeowners in Madison Grove are represented by the following elected representatives who may be contacted as indicated. Bakersfield City Council Ward 4 David Couch 1501 Truxtun Avenue Telephone: 326-3767 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kern County Board of Supervisors District 4 Barbara Patrick 1115' Truxtun Avenue Telephone: 868-3680 · Bakersfield, CA 93301 Field Office: 1248 Norris Road Telephone: 391-7480 Bakersfield, CA 93308 California State Senate 14th District Four-year term commencing 12/7/98: Chuck Poochigian (R) 84t Mohawk, Suite 190 Telephone: 661-324-6188 Bakersfield, CA 93309 FAX: 661-324-6199 5052 Capitol BuildingTelephone: 916-445-9600 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX: 916-327-3523 2 _ Buyer's Initials 07/28/00 ..... 11:08 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~007 California State Assembly 32nd District Roy Ashbum (R) 5136 State Capitol Telephone: 916-319-2031 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX: 916-319-2132 1200 Truxtun Avenue, # 120 Telephone: 661-395-2995 Bakersfield, CA 93301 FAX: 661-395-3883 U. S. Senate (two Senators) Barbara Boxer (D) Telephone: 202-224-3553 112 Senate Hart Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 1700 Montgomery Street, #240 Telephone: 415-403-0100 San Francisco; CA 94111 FAX: 415-956-6701 Diane Feinstein (D) 331 Senate Hart Office Building Telephone: 202-224-3841 Washington, D.C. 20510 FAX: 202-228-3954 1700 Montgomery Street, #305 Telephone: 415-249-4777 San Francisco, CA 94111 U. S.' House of Representatives 21 st District William M. Thomas (R) 2209 Rayburn House Telephone: 202-225-2915 Washington, D.C. 20515 FAX: 202-225-2908 4100 Truxtun Avenue, #220 Telephone: 661-327-3611 Bakersfield, CA 93309 FAX: 661-631-9535 As the various political district boundaries may be redrawn from time to time and the representatives may change with each election, it will be necessary for the home buyers to periodically confirm the district in which their address is located and the identity of their current representatives. 4. TAXES Real estate taxes for Madison Grove are determined by multiplying the local tax rate by the full cash value of the property. For the purchaser of a lot in this subdivision, the "Full cash value" of the lot or unit will presumptively be the valuation, as reflected on the tax roll, determined by the Kern County Tax Assessor as of the date of purchase of the lot or unit. For the 1999-2000 tax year, the total property tax rate in Kern County Buyer's Initials 3 // ~. ......f0~7~2.8/00 11:08 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOLES ~008 applicable to homes in this subdivision is estimated to be approximately 1.25% of the full cash value. The actual tax rate may be greater or less than this estimate and will not be available until after an Assessor's Parcel Number is assigned to the property by the County Assessor in January, 2000. The total tax rate may be increased by the issuance of general obligation bonds previously approved by the voters and sold by a county water district, a sanitation district, or other such. For further information regarding the tax rates, prospective purchasers should contact Mr. Philip Franey at the Kern County Tax Assessor's office at 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 2nd Floor, in Bakersfield. The telephone number is (661) 868-3202. In addition to the tax described in this paragraph, properties within the community will be subject to the assessments described below. 5. ASSESSMENTS Assessments for the following districts/agencies have been obtained for the operating budget cycle 7/1/98 to 6/30/99. Each year the districts/agencies adopt new assessment budgets, which under the law are allowed to increase 2% annually. No information is available at the present time for the 7/1/99 to 6/30/00 budget cycle. The homeowner can make a determination as to whether a particular assessment has been increased for the next fiscal year by telephoning that district/agency after July 31, 2000. Consolidated Maintenance District: The Madison Grove community lies within the boundaries of the City of Bakersfield Consolidated Maintenance District, which is a benefit assessment district for street and median landscaping and park purposes. Each homeowner in the Madison Grove community will pay an assessment every year as part of their property tax bill; this tax assessment is in perpetuity. The assessment will be based on the proportionate cost of maintaining the landscape areas within the landscape maintenance district. The assessment against each lot in tract 5921-1 cannot be determined until after an APN is assigned to the property by the County Assessor in January, 2000. The amount of the annual assessment on each lot within Tract 5921-1 is expected to be approximately $110, which equals approximately $9.17 per month. Each year, the tax will be calculated on actual costs to operate the consolidated maintenance district and is subject to variation from year to year. As landscape medians and park areas in your district are completed, the annual assessment will be adjusted to take into account the changes occurring within your district. For further information contact City of Bakersfield, Department of Public Works, at (661) 326-3592. The address is 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301. .City of Bakersfield Assessment District No.94-3: The property tax bill for homeowners within Madison Grove will include an assessment for a City of Bakersfield Assessment District. This Assessment District will finance the construction and acquisition of street, storm drain, sanitary sewer and park improvements benefiting the Madison Grove community. The total assessment against each lot in Tract 5921~1 will not be determined until after an Assessor's Parcel Number is assigned to the property by the County Assessor in January, 2000. This assessment will be paid over a specific number of years (usually about 15 to 20 years) commencing with property tax year 1999- 2000. The amount of the annual assessment on each lot within Tract 5921-1 is expected 4 Buyer's Initials 07/28/.00 ~I.;_.0.8..FAX 6~1 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~009 to be approximately $200 and will be part of the property tax bill. After January, 2000, the actual amount can be verified by the City of Bakersfield, Finance Department, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301. The telephone number is (661) 326- 3057. Solid Waste Collection: The property tax bill for the Madison Grove community homeowners will also include a City of Bakersfield Solid Waste Collection fee per year. The 1998~99 tax year billing for solid waste collection will be $134.00, which equals $11.17 per month. Each year this tax is based on actual costs to operate the district and is subject to variation from year to year. This tax will continue for an indefinite period. The homeowner should call the district to start refuse service, at which time the district will provide the waste containers which must be used with their automated equipment. For more information regarding solid waste collection, you may call customer service at (661) 326-3114. The office is located at 4101 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93309. City of Bakersfield Sewer Assessment: The property tax bill for the Madison Grove community homeowners will also include a City of Bakersfield Sewer Assessment fee per year. This assessment is for the sewer system operation into the City of Bakersfield's sewer system. The 1998-99 tax year billing for sewer system operation will be $110.00 which equals approximately $9.17 per month. Each year this tax is based on actual costs to operate the sewer system operation and is subject to variation from year to year. This tax will continue for an indefinite period. For further information regarding the City of Balcersfield Sewer Assessment, you may call customer service at (661) 326- 3249. The office is located at 8101 Ashe Road, Bakersfield, California 93313. Kern Community College Assessment: The Kern Community College District is funding repairs to Bakersfield College Stadium. The assessment for the 1998-99 tax year is $9.90 per lot, which equals approximately $0.83 per month. This assessment will be paid over a 20-year term commencing with property tax year 1996-97. For further information regarding the Kern Community College Assessment, you may contact the Kern Community College District at (661) 336-5100. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act~ Homes constructed after 1992 and which are located within the Rosedale, Rio Bravo-Greeley or Norris School Districts are subject to an additional annual school assessment in the approximate amount of $432.81 per household. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this assessment contact Mary Wilkins, office of the Superintendent of Schools, at 634-4599. Cawelo Water District: The property tax bill for the Madison Grove community homeowners will also include a Cawelo Water District assessment fee per year. This assessment is made on all property that lies within the Cawelo Water District, which is mx agricultural water supply agency. The property which the homeowner is purchasing is a part ora large agricultural water and irrigation district, and the lot purchased by the homeowner acts as part of the collateral for district improvement bonds. Each year this _. . Buyer's Initials 5 07/28/00 11:09 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~010 tax is based on the District's obligations for the .year in excess of the receipts from water charges, both of which are reflected in the District's Annual Estimate of Obligations filed with the Clerk of the Board of.Supervisors of the County of Kern. The 1999-2000 tax year billing for the water district operation wilt be approximately $47 per acre, which is approximately $15.67 per household. Although the lot purchased by the homebuyer is no longer used for agricultural purposes, this assessment will continue for an indefinite period. This item is not a part of the property tax bill and will have to be paid separately. If the homebuyer were to fail to pay this assessment upon receipt of the bill, it would become a lien against the property. For further information regarding the Cawelo Water District Assessment, you may call (661) 393-6070. The office is located at 17207 Industrial Farm Road, Bakersfield, California 93308. 6. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES The State of California Senate Bill No. 813 provides that the County Assessor has the authority to reassess newly constructed homes upon their close of escrow. The Assessor will issue a supplemental tax bill to the purchaser(s) of a new home for the tax difference resulting from the reassessment. We have no control over the valuation of the assessment, nor over the timing or the amount of the supplemental bill resulting from that reassessment, and seller accepts no responsibility for adjusted fees. 7. SOILS The suitability of the soils and underlying conditions together with observation of the grading of Madison Grove was tested and overseen by Soils Engineering, Inc. You may contact Tom Bayne or Tony Frangie at 831-5100. Their address is 4700 District Boulevard, Bakersfield, California 93313. The soils and geologic report is also available for review in the sales office for Madison Grove. Kern County soils are a lmown habitat for the Coccidioides Immitis, otherwise known as the Valley Fever Fungus Spore. Soil disturbance, which occurs during land preparation or general yard cultivation, may agitate the spore into action. Information regarding this fungus may be obtained from the Kern County Health Department, located at 1700 Flower Street, Bakersfield, California 93305, telephone number (661) 868-0554. 8. EASEMENTS Certain lots may contain easements given to utility companies, the County of Kern, the State of California, or other property owners. These easements restrict the use of the easement area. In the event of a minor encroachment by any dwelling unit into an easement, buyer hereby agrees to cooperate with the seller and local governing agencies to correct the situation. Minor encroachments will not have any effect on the title or its future transfer. Please see your sales representative for details. 9. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT/USES AND ZONING The attached map depicts current land uses, known to us, which are proposed in the area surrounding the home you have selected to purchase. The map may be updated in the future. If you are concerned about the development in the surrounding area, you 6 Buyer's Initials 07/28/00 11:09 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~]011 should fully review the map with the City Planning Department to determine how your lot might be affected by such future development. Our knowledge of present plans to develop the real property adjoining, or in the vicinity of your lot, is described on this map. No warranties or representations are made that such land use plan is complete, will be carried out, or will not change in the future. 10. CONSTRUCTION AND SALES ACTIVITY Buyer acknowledges and understands that the project will be developed in phases. Some inconvenience may occur due to increased noise, dust from the traffic and other matters related to construction activity and the operation of a sales office, until such time that the sale of the project has been completed. 11. MODEL HOMES, DECORATOR, AND LANDSCAPING ITEMS We have constructed and decorated model homes to show prospective buyers what type of features could be incorporated into our Madison Grove homes. The models are also intended to be helpful in providing purchasers with possible decorating ideas. Your home will be very similar to the model type identified in your sales contract. However, for many reasons, such as the unavailability of materials, design changes, field conditions, cost considerations and 6ther circumstances, minor changes may be made from the initial plans and specifications used to construct the models as compared to your actual home. Purchasers should note that Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. cannot guarantee that all of Madison Grove will be completed based upon the model homes currently on display. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. reserves the right to increase or decrease home sizes or change home designs in Madison Grove in its sole discretion. After you enter into a contract for the purchase of a home in Madison Grove, changes in materials or specifications may be made without your consent, provided that substantially similar materials are substituted. Small place cards in the models have been used to identify Decorator Items. A complete list of the Decorator Items can be obtained from the Sales Agent. The homes may contain certain Optional Items, which are available to our customers at an additional charge. Prices for options are available in the sales office. Optional Items and prices are subject to change without notice. Kyle Caner Homes, Inc. only agrees to provide those options and prices offered on the date a sale contract is signed by both Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. and the buyer. Again, certain options are predetermined and after standard construction cut-off dates, may not be available. 12. CARPETING Due to governmental regulations and construction requirements of lenders, we include standard carpeting in all new homes as part of the purchase price. We also offer buyers the opportunity to purchase upgraded carpeting for their new homes. __ Buyer's Initials 07/28/00 11:10 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER ttO~ES The carpeting installed in your home has a limited manufacturer's life. No warranties are made on the life of your carpet other than those supplied by the manufacturer. 13. BRASS PLUMBING/LIGHT FIXTURES/HARDWARE Although the manufacturers apply the finest protective coatings available to the plated surface of their products, brass, bronze or other antique finishes have their limitations. In time, the protective lacquer may deteriorate either from exposure to weather, perspiration, extremes of climate, cleaning agents, frequency of use or other factors. Tarnishing or excessive wear of the. finish is, therefore, not a defect, but a normal process which is unavoidable. Under these circumstances, these finishes cannot be guaranteed and products will not be repaired or replaced under the manufacturers' warranties for tarnishing or wear of finishes. 14. CABLE T.V. Cable T.V. oUtlets have been provided in your new home. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no representation as to when cable T.V. service will be provided to the area. For further information contact Timewarner Cable at 327-967t, Cox Cable.at 327-0821 or Popvision at 638-2222. 15. TELEPHONE OUTLETS Telephone outlets have been provided in your new home. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no representation as to when telephone service can be installed in your new home. For further information contact Pacific Bell at (800) 310-2355. 16. SMOKE DETECTORS AND WATER HEATERS An operable smoke detector has been installed in your new home in the manner required by California state law. No warranties are made on this product other than those supplied by the manufacturer. The smoke detector is wired into the electrical system of the home and is equipped with a battery back-up. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. recommends that the Buyer check the battery on a monthly basis. The Buyer should immediately replace the battery whenever necessary. In addition, the water heater provided in your new home has been braced, anchored or strapped as required by California state law. This precaution has been taken in order to minimize movement of the water heater due to an earthquake. For safety purposes the Buyer is urged not to remove any of the materials used to secure the water heater. For further information please refer to the Attestation of Compliance Re Smoke Detector and Water Heater in Accordance with Health & Safety Code § 13113.8(b) and § 19211, attached as Appendix "A" and incorporated herein by reference. Buyer's Initials 8 07/28/00 11:10 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HO~ES ~013 17. DRAINAGE Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. is required by law to establish, under the guidance of a civil engineer, the appropriate drainage of water from all lots in a subdivision. During periods of heavy rain, some puddling may be experienced and is considered normal. However, the pattern of drainage on the lot, and fi.om the lot, may have a significant effect on the settling of a house or subsidence of surrounding land. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. wants you, as a new homeowner, to understand that the lack of maintenance or modifications which you make to your lot may cause an obstruction to the drainage or cause the drainage to be diverted. Additions, such as walkways, landscaping, patios and driveways, could cause significantand permanent adverse damage both to your home and lot and to your neighbor's. If you intend to make modifications or changes which may affect your lot, Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. will not be legally responsible for the impact on the established drainage. You are responsible for maintaining any drainage channel, cut, swale, berm or control facilities situated on your lot. Overwatering, plus modifications to landscaping, patios, driveways or walkways may result in water nm-off to neighboring property. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. is not responsible for any damage caused by such occurrences. 18. LOT VARIATION Side or rear slopes may exist on your lot due to the change in elevation from lot to lot. Lot configurations may necessitate the placement of driveway approaches which do not align perfectly with garage entrances and may be placed at an angle. Our model home lots may not reflect the size or condition of your lot. 19. PERIMETER WALL/FENCES The grading of the lots in this subdivision may result in the lot boundary line being located at either the top or the bottom of the slope. The lot boundary lines are determined by the tract map for your property, not by the grading or topography of the lot. The perimeter, side or front fences are not necessarily located on the lot boundary line. Fencing will vary with the lot location. Maintenance of fences located on the common lot line is the joint responsibility of adjacent property owners. Maintenance of fences located entirely on your property is the responsibility of the homeowner. Consult your sales representative for the proposed fencing ott your specific lot. The current fencing plans are preliminary and may need to be modified depending on actual field conditions. 20. HOMES/GARAGES All homes and garages built by Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. are designed to meet or exceed the minimum building standards as set forth by the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield. Each home and garage is designed and engineered to fit on the minimum lot size of each community. The basic floor plan and dimensions of the home and garage Buyer's Initials /? 07/28/00 11:10 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~014 may be altered if the lot you have chosen will allow for the revised configuration. Special needs uses and requests for design alterations must be conveyed to the sales agent in advance of the purchase contract signing. There may be additional charges and your sales agent will explore the options as well as the additional costs with you. Item 26 of this document provides for the inspection of plans and prices and should be reviewed in conjunction with your special needs or design alterations. 21. VIEWS - OPEN SPACE KYle Carter Homes, Inc. and its employees or agents, make no representations or warranties with respect to the presence or absence of any current or future view from any portion of your lot. Any such view may change or be obstructed depending upon activities undertaken during the development of this subdivision or on adjacent property. There can be no assurances, expressed or implied, regarding the permanency of any view. Furthermore, Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to any open space or property adjacent to any individual lot or the subdivision as a whole, whether this property may be owned or controlled by Kyle Caner Homes, Inc., government agencies or private property owner. 22. FLOOD HAZARD ZONE Kern County lies in 39 potential flood zones of which there are three (3) primary flood zones, A, B and C. Madison Grove is in flood zone C as per Panel 0600751005B (September 29, 1986) issued by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Flood zone C represents areas of minimal flooding.. Homeowners should also be aware that the entire City of Bakersfield is subject to extreme flooding in the event that there is sudden or total failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. For further information, call the National Flood Insurance Project at (800) 638- 6620. You may also contact the Kern County Planning Department at (661) 862-8600, 2700 "M" Street, Suite 100, Bakersfield, CA 93301 for a copy of the "Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for County and Greater Bakersfield Area Below Lake Isabella Dam." Also, please refer to the Statutory Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement (California Civil Code § 1102.6c), attached as Appendix "B" and incorporated herein by reference for further disclosure information. 23. SEISMIC COMPLIANCE Madison Grove is not located in an identified Earthquake Fault Zone, which relates to the presence of actual faults, as defined by the State of California. Nor is it located in a Seismic Hazard Zone, which relates to landslides and liquifaction, as defined by the State of California However, Kern County does lie within Seismic Zone 4. Seismic zones relate to the intensity of shaldng that can take place on the ground. The State of California is divided into four seismic zones, with Zone 4 representing the areas likely to experience Buyer's Initials 0Z/28/00 11:11 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~015 the most severe activity. Although Madison.Grove is not located in close proximity to a fault, seismic movement on faults at some distance may cause shaking, which could range from minor to severe, to homes within the tract. Please refer to Statutory Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement (California Civil Code § 1102.6c), attached as Appendix "B" and incorporated herein by reference, for further disclosure information. The state has promulgated earthquake building standards, which Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. has met or exceeded in the construction of their homes. While a Kyle Carter home is constructed to meet these current standards, no home in today's market, including a Kyle Carter home, is constructed to completely withstand earthquake damage, should a quake occur. 24. HEALTHY HOUSE Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. constructs their homes with certain amenities intended to create a healthier interior environment for the homeowner. The goal of the healthier constructed house is to reduce, not eliminate, the amount of normal indoor pollutants. The homeowner should be aware that each individual is biologically different with unique tolerances to various pollutants. It is impossible to completely eliminate indoor pollution for every individual, and Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no claim that your home is built to be completely inert. Persons with hypersensitivities or allergies should consult with their physician regarding the benefits, if any, of living in a home with the aforementioned healthy house qualities, and should not rely on the existence of these qualities as the only basis for the purchase of their home. 25. LEGAL DOCUMENTS All homes within this subdivision are subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration") which has been recorded with the County Recorder's office. The Declaration restricts the use of the homes in the project. We suggest that you carefully review the Declaration. The homeowner should be aware that included within the Declaration are architectural review requirements. Any new additions or alterations contemplated by a homeowner must be submitted to the designated architectural review committee prior to commencement of any construction for approval. The members of our sales staff have no authority to explain or interpret the Declaration or to advise you as to what the terms of that legal document mean. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no representations concerning this document. 26. PLANS AND PRICES Buyer's Initials 11 07~28/00 11:11 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HOMES ~016 Fully detailed plans and specifications for the homes being offered for sale in this subdivision are available for inspection at the Sales Office during normal business hours. Plans are subject to minor variations including room dimensions and window locations. Renderings, topographical maps and floor plans shown in the sales office, sales brochures and other advertising may not be drawn perfectly to scale. The house renderings are intended as artists' conceptions and show non-standard landscaping. Due to the ever changing market conditions, Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no representation that our current floor plans will be constructed on all lots of this subdivision, or whether prices, terms or conditions of sale in future phases will change. 27. NEIGHBORING BUSINESS ACTIVITY The County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield encourage operation of properly conducted businesses in agriculture, oil, mining, manufacturing and other non-residential operations within the County and City. If the property you are purchasing is .located near these businesses, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomfort arising from such operations to the extent allowed by law. The Madison Grove community lies within a historical farming and oil producing area, and the following lots contain wells that have been properly abandoned in accordance with all regulations: #11 and 12 on Autumn Serenade; #6 and 22 on Mona Lisa Way; #7 on Anaparno Court; #24 on San Ysidro Lane; #30 on Portofino Court; #44 and 46 on Shangri~La Lane; and #43 on Chatanooga Drive. The attached "Abandoned Well Exhibit Map" indicates the actual location of the abandoned wells on the lots. There are construction restrictions and guidelines associated with the presence of properly abandoned wells. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. has fully complied with these restrictions and guidelines. The community has been designed with the location of the former wells in mind so that none of the wells interfere with the potential construction of a home, nor do they pose any known or foreseeable risk associated with the presence of these properly abandoned wells. The wells have been capped at approximately 10 feet below ground, and there is no visible indication above ground of the presence of the wells. If you have any concerns or questions regarding the presence or safety of these wells, you may contact the California Division of Oil & Gas at 4800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 417, Bakersfield, California 93309, telephone number 322-4031, to learn more about the abandonment requirements. The Madison Grove community is bounded on the west by Friant-Kern Canal, which is a major agricultural water source for the southern San Joaquin Valley. Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. will be or already has provided protective fencing to guard against immediate access to the Friant-Kern Canal for the safety of the community. The homeowner should be aware, however, that Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. cannot extend protective fencing into areas owned by other parties outside the Madison Grove Community nor across the canal itself. The homeowner should be alert to the fact that it is, therefore, possible to circumvent the fencing if one travels far enough in either direction along the fence line. In addition, the homeowner should also be aware of the 12 Buyer's Initials 07./28/00 11:12 FAX 661 589 1425 .KYLE CARTER HOMES ~017 presence of a second canal, the Calloway Canal, which runs to the west of and roughly parallel to the Friant-Kern Canal. 28. CONDITION OF PROPERTY Buyer should refer to the "Limited-Term Final Subdivision Public Report" attached hereto as Appendix "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 29. WARRANTY Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, except that which is specifically set forth in the Kyle Carter Homes' "One-Year Warranty," a copy of which is attached to this disclosure. The One-Year War.ranty describes in detail Kyle Carter Homes' repair obligations and warranty obligations. Requests for warranty work are to be submitted in writing to Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. The procedures for the settlement of disputes regarding any warranty claim are to be found on page one of the One-Year Warranty. Dispute resolutions are to be conducted through an arbitration proceeding conducted by the American Arbitration Association or other approved arbitration services. 30. AUTHORITY OF SALES AGENT(S) Buyer understands that the sales agent(s) at the project does not have authority to modify the terms of any document or to make any representations or commitments binding on Kyle Carter Homes, Inc., whether in writing or otherwise, :without written approval from Kyle Caner Homes, Inc. 31. RELATED ENTITIES Buyer aclmowledges and understands that Kyle Carter Real Estate, Inc., and Kyle Caner Mortgage, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. Buyer is also aware that, unless directed otherwise, Kyle Carter Homes, Inc. will utilize the services of each of the respective entities on a fee basis. Fees for services will be charged at standard prevailing rates as disclosed in Buyer's escrow instruction and closing statement. Buyer further acknowledges that Kyle Caner Homes, Inc. is a corporation. Please refer to the Statutory Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationships (California Civil Code §2079.16) attached as Appendix "D" and incorporated herein by reference. Buyer's Initials 07/28/00 .......... 11:12 FAX 661 589 1425 KYLE CARTER HO~ES ~018 32. PURCHASE INCENTIVES Seller from time to time offers purchase incentives of limited duration. In order to qualify for the incentive, the Buyer must submit within the incentive period, a signed purchase agreement accompanied by the appropriate deposit. Otherwise seller is not obligated to provide buyer with the advertised purchase incentive. I have read and understand all of the above disclosure statements. Buyer's Signature Date Buyer's Signature Date ~ Buyer's Initials 14 Sent By: COLEMAN HOMES [NC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug O0 lO:20AU;Job 54; Page 1/7 Coleman Homes Building the Difference FACSIMILE TRANSSIITTAL SI-IEET ;. ......,,~;. , ...... _ FROM: COLEbi~ RESIDENTIAL COLEMAN PROPERTY 0 URGENT ~}I:OR REVI£W FI PLEASE COMblENT ~PLEASE lq. EPLY NOTES/COMMENTS: iIAI<ERSFIELD, CA, 9;3309 661-326-1141 FAX 661-326-1139 Sent By: COLEMAN HOMES ];NC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug O0 lO:20AU;Job 54; Page 2/7 COLEMAN HOMES, INC, "CELEBRATIONS" AT RIVERLAKES A GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY GENERAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 1. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT/USES AND ZONING The attached map depicts current land uses, known to us, that are proposed in the area surrounding the home you have selected to purchase on Lot ~ of Tract No. _, County of Kern, The map may be updated in the future. If you are concerned about the development in the surrounding area, you should fully review the map with the City Planning Department to determine how your lot might be affected by such future development. Our knowledge of present plans to develop the real property adjoining, or. in the vicinity of your lot, Is described on this map. No warranties or representations are made that such land use plan is complete, will be carried out, or will not change In the future. 2, SOILS The suitability of the soils and underlying conditions together with observation of the grading of Rivedakes was tested and .overseen by Soils Engineering, Inc. You may contact their office at (661) 831-5100. The soils and geologic reports are also available for review in the sales office for Rivedakes. Soils information is also available at City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. 3. PLANS AND PRICES The blueprint drawings and brochures of our homes, plot plans, grading, drainage and improvement plans all contain dimensions which are merely approximate. They are not intended tobe precise dimensions with regard to our development. Construction will be done In substantial conformance with those plans, but dimensions may change slightly, from the plans. Due to the ever- changing market conditions, Coleman Homes, Inc., makes no representation that our current floorplane will be constructed on all lots of this subdivision, or i. whether prices, terms or conditions of sale in future phases will change. =~ 4. LIVING AREAS ?i The following areas of the homes are not waterproofed, ineulate~l or finished ....* adequately to render such areas suitable for use as habitable living areas: ¥...' garages and/or covered porches in all plans. Sen~ By: COLEMAN HOMES INC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug O0 10:20AMjJob 54; Page 3/7 5. MODEL HOMES, DECORATOR, AND LANDSCAPING ITEMS Model homes contain decorator and landscaping features that are not included in your new home. Standard features to be included In your new .home may change; however, due to our continuing program of development, or.changes in material availability, we reserve the right to make changes in product and design, substituting items of similar quality without notice or obligation. a. Light Fixtures All dining room and nook light fixtures will be centered in the middle of the rooms; model fixture locations may vary. b. Security Lights Security lights have ~been installed on the extedor of the model homes for security purposes only and are not standard features. c. Cabinet Finish The natural cabinet finish, which is a standard feature, will show the natural color irregularities In the wood since it is a clear finish. 6. CARPETING Due to governmental regulations and construction requirements of lenders, we Include standard carpeting In all new homes as part of the purchaSe price. We also offer buyers the opportunity to purchase upgraded carpeting for part or all of your new home. 7. BRASS PLUMBING/LIGHT 'FIXTURES/HARDWARE Although the manufacturers apply the finest protective coatings available to the plated surface of their products, brass, bronze or other antique finishes have their limitations. In time, the protective lacquer may deteriorate, either from exposure to weather, perspiration, extremes of climate, cleaning agents, frequency of use or other factors. Tarnishing or excessive wear of these finished is, therefore, not a defect, but a normal process which is unavoidable. Under these circumstances, these finishes cannot be guaranteed and products will not " be repaired or replaced under the manufacturers' warranties for tarnishing or ': wear of finishes. If this is a concern, chrome plumbing fixtures and antique brass " exterior hardware is available. 8. CABLE T.V. ' .:. Cable T.V. outlets have been provided In your.new home. The location of the ~ outlets can be obtained from our sales representative. Coleman. Homes, Inc., ': makes no representation as to when cable T.V. service will be provided to the .: area. For further information contact Warner Cable at 327-8272 or Cox Cable at ;' 327-0821. i' · Sent By: COLEMAN HOMES INC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug 00 10:21AMjJob 54; Page 4/7 9. TELEPHONE OUTLETS We have provided several telephone outlets in your home. The location of the outlets can be obtained from our sales representative. 10, ELEVATIONS In order to offer you as much variety as possible, our architects .have designed different elevations for each floorplan. Consequently, you may notice minor changes from the model homes or rer~derlng elevations. These may include such items as minor floorplan changes resulting from exterior and intedor trim and window locations or other features. In addition, each eXterior, has been professionally ·designed to create a tasteful blending of color and may :differ from the colored renderings. Renderings are artist's conceptions only .and are not intended to be precise specifications. 11. DRAINAGE Coleman Homes, Inc. is required by law to establish, under the guidance*of a civil engineer, the appropriate drainage of water from all lots in a: :subdivision. The pattern of drainage on the lot, and from the lot, may have a significant effect on the settling of a house .or subsidence of surrounding land. Coleman Homes, Inc. wants you, as a new homeowner, to understand that the lack of maintenance or modifications which you make to your lot may cause an obstruction to the drainage or cause the drainage to be diverted. Additions, such as walkways, landscaping, patios-and driveways, could cause significant and permanent adverse damage both to your home ar~f 'lot and to your neighbors. If you intend to make modifications or changes which may affect your lot, Coleman Homes, Inc. will not be legally responsible for tiie impact on the established drainage, You are responsible for maintaining any drainage channel, cut, swale, berm or control facilities situated on your lot. t 2. LOT VARIATION Side or rear slopes may exist on your lot due to the change in elevation from lot to lot. Our model home lots may not reflect the size or condition of your lot. 13. PERIMETER WALL/FENCES The grading of the lots in this subdivision may result in the lot boundary line :: being located at either the top or the bottom of the slope. The lot b0t~tndary lines are determined by the tract map for your property, not by the grading or topography of the lot. The perimeter, slcle or front fences are located according :: to the grading of the slope and may not necessarily be located on the lot .: boundary line. Fencing will vary w~th the lot location. Consult your sales representative for the proposed fencing on your specific lot. The current fencing plans are preliminary and may need to be modified depending on actual field .'.' conditions. Sen~ By: COLEUAN HOUES [NC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug 00 10:21AUjJob 54; Page 5/7 14. VIEWS - OPEN SPACE Coleman Homes, Inc. and Its employees or agents, make no representations or warranties with respect tO the presence or absence of any current orlfuture view from any portion of your lot. Any such view may change or be.obstructed depending upon activities undertaken during the development of this'Subdivision or on adjacent property. There can be. no assurances, expressed:'or implied, regarding the permanency of any View. Furthermore, Coleman Hemes, Inc. makes no representations or warranties with respect to any opeh:...space or property adjacent toany individual lot or the subdivision as a whole, whether this property may be owned or controlled by Coleman Homes, Inc., government agencies or private property owner. i5. TAXES Real estate taxes for Riverlakes am determined by multiplying the local tax rate by the full cash value of a property. The total property tax t..ate for the subdivision Is approximately 1.10% for tax year 1997-98. With the. addition of interest and redemption charges on .any indebtedness approved by!~oters prior to July 1, 1978, the total property tax rate in Kem County applicable:':to 'homes in this subdivision is approximately 1.25% of the full cash value, although the total tax rate may exceed 1.25% of the fully cash value of'the property. For.example, an issue of general obligation bonds previously approved by the voters and sold by a county water district, a sanitation district,' or other such district could increase the total tax so that it exceeds 1.25% of the full cash value. For the purchaser of a lot in this subdivision, the "full cash value" of the lot oruni{ will be the valuation, as reflected on the tax roll, determined by the Kern County Tax Assessor as of the date of purchase of the lot. · For further information regarding tax rates, prospective purchasers should · ' contact the-Kern County Tax Assessor's office at (805) 868-3490. In* addition to i! the tax described in this paragraph, properties within the commUnity will be subject to the assessments described below. :.! Buyem Initials · . 16. ASSESSMENTS In addition .to school bonds, each homeowner in the Riverlakes community will pay assessments every year as :part of their property tax bill. : A~eessment ~iatrj.'.(~.t No. 86-2: The property tax bill for homeowners :': .~ within Rivedakes will Include a Aasesment District No. 86-2..fee, for more ' ! information contact the Kern County Assessor's office at 861-2311 .: · ~. Buyers Initials ',:i: ..... ~!i,~:i!.~..4;:.'v.: ....... : ........................ . · ;.::...¥ ~, ~.::a::~:~'~,'.~,:(,*;~:,~: ........... S,ent, By: COLEMAN HOMES ]'NC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug 00 10:22AM;Job 54; Page 6/7 .. Community I=ecilities Distrj~ 92-1(RNR ,~hool Final~cirtq Distri=t):,_The property tax bill for homeowners within Riverlakes will ..include a Assesment District No. 92-1 fee, for more information contact' Mr. Alvin Sandrini at the Norris School District office at 399-7987. Buyers Initials Ci.ty of*Bakersfield Me~nl~enance District No !,.Di.vjsion 1: The:property tax bill for homeowners within Riverlakes will include an assessment for City of Bakersfield-Maintenance District No. 1 Division 1 and is sub..ject to any taxes, assessments'and obligations thereof. Each homeowner, within the district will be assessed annually for the cost of mainte..'rtance and electricity for the street I~ghts within the project and maintenance of the landscaped slopes, parkways and parks that lie within the district. Buyers Initials 17. SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES The State of California Senate Bill No. ,813 provides that the County Assessor has the authority to reasseas newly constructed homes upon tl~eir close o escrow. The Assessor will issue a supplemental .tax bill to the 'purcl~er(s) of a new home .for the tax difference resulting from the reassessment. ~ have no control over the valuation of the assessment, nor over the timing o!~:ihe amount of the supplemental bill resulting from that reassessment, and seller :accepts no responsibility for adjusted fees, Buyers Initials .~ t8. EASEMENTS :: Certain Iota may contain easements given to utility companies, the County of · Kern, the State of California, or other-property owners. These easements restrict the use of the easement area. In the event of a minor encroachhient by any dwelling unit into an easement, buyer hereby agrees to cooperate ~ith the seller and local governing agencies to correct the situation. Minor enc~'Chrnente will .:: not have any affect on the title or its ~future transfer. Said easerne~ may have above ground transformer boxes for electrical, telephone,' cable, etC~, on the lot selected by Buyer, and BUyer hereby acknowledges said locations.· Please see ~ your sales representative-for details. 19. CONSTRUCTION AND SALES ACTIVITY !! Buyer acknowledges and understands that the project will be .de..veloped In i.! phases, Some inconvenience may occur due to increased noise, dust from !.i traffic and other matters related to construction activity, and the e~peration of a sales office, until such time that the sale of the project has been completed, sentry: COLEMAN HOMES INC.; 6613261139; 01 Aug 00 10:22AM;Job 54; Page 7/7 20. LEGAL DOCUMENTS All homes wttl~in....this subdivision are .subject. to a Declaration.. of!!?i~venants, Conditions and Restrictiorm'(".Declarafion"):which..has been.rocor..de..~:~With the County Recorder'.s office, 'The Declaration restrlcts,:the..use of the.; .l~mee:'in the project,. We suggest that .you camfullyl.teview the. Declaration. Th0'.:~embers of our sales staff have no authority to explain or interpret the Dectai~iJtion or to advise..you as-towhat the terms of that legal document mean. Therefore, we are not bound by any such representations made by them. 2t. SCHOOLS ... .. Information regarding the' public schools :service.the Riverlakes: con,unity can be obtained from the following Districts:: i'... ,.~.~'~' :'... · ......:, .. . . ... Grades K,8: Norris School District-: ...... :... ..... :?: ~... ..... 6940 Calloway.IDri.,Bakersfield '" (66t) 399-7987' :!?~;!:=~?!'.,... Grades 9-12: Kern High Scho0'iDistri~t 5801 Sundale Ave., Bakersfield (661) 827-3100 Currently Coleman Home$..'s best Jnformatior~.is that the Riverlake~=~Omrnunity students will be. served by.the foltowingechools:... ..............~¥:'~:~' :..' . .' '.'. .... . .: .... :.:~:~'i ::~.~'.:. Olive Drive. Elementary SGhool, (K-5) Bakersfield, CA 93312 (661) 399-9691 :i Non'is Middle School (6-8) 6940 Calloway 'Dr,, Bakersfield, CA 93312 (661) 3~g;:5571 ...... Centennial High School (9-12) 8601 Hageman 'Rd, Bakersfield, CA 93312 (6(}1) 588-8601 ': Homebuyem should contact the appropriate school district office ah~l::sc=hools for 'i tho"re:Get up-to-date Information regarding Piedmont at the publ~:=":'schools as " attendance should be verified due to periodic changes. In addition;iinformatlon regarding transportation for school students can be provided by the appropriate districts. ::. 22. NEIGHBORING BUSINESS ACTIVITY '~ The County of Kern encourages operation of properly conducted:..business in " agriculture, oil, mining, manufacturing and other nonresidential opera, tions within the County. If the property you are purchasing is located near these:businesses, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomfort arising from such operations to the extent allowed by law. This notice does not waive your legal rights. Exhibit C-I RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN' RECORDED RETURN TO: NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIEN (Addendum to the Contract of Purchase and Sale and Receipt for Deposit) Tract Lot or Lots The undersigned Buyer acknowledges that the above mentioned Lot or Lots of Tract (the "Property") being purchased by Buyer from Castle & Cooke California, Inc., a California corporation, is/are located within and is/are subject to one or more special assessment liens and, possibly, other special district obligations, including but not limited to the following: Assessment District No. 98-1 (Brimhall IV/Stockdale Highway Commercial/Gosford Industrial). The City of Bakersfield (the "City") has formed this assessment district and levied special assessment liens upon the Property for the purpose of financing certain public improvements and facilities such as roadways, streetscapes, parks, etc. The assessment liens for the Tract which includes the Property are in the principal amount of $ per lot, and, unless discharged by full cash payment, will result in an annual installment on the property 'tax bill of approximately $ per lot per year. Buyer acknowledges that the Property is within Assessment District No. 98-1 and possibly other special districts, and that, in addition to ordinary property taxes, the Property is subject to the special assessment liens levied upon the individual lots in said Assessment District No. 98-1, and that an annual installment on account of the unpaid special assessment lien for each lot will be collected on the property tax bill issued by the County of Kern for each separate lot of SF2-63793.1 40213-18-SS4-10/20/98 the Property. The actual amount of each annual installment on account of each unpaid special assessment lien will vary depending upon, among other things, the interest rates and the term of the bonds sold to finance the public improvements. The principal amount per lot listed above has been fixed, but the amount listed above for the annual installment should be considered an estimate only. Buyer further acknowledges that, while each Lot of the Property is subject to a special assessment lien, other adjacent lots, whether or not included in the Tract, may not be subject to a special assessment lien. This Notice and the disclosure provided herein shall be provided to each successor of Buyer, and the obligation to provide this Notice to each successor of Buyer shall constitute a covenant running with the land of each lot the Property until such time as the special assessment lien on such lot of the Property has been fully paid and discharged. The Seller and each successive seller shall file an executed copy of this Notice with the Finance Director of the City within five (5) days of close of escrow for the transfer of title of any lot of the Property. BUYER SELLER Castle & Cooke California, Inc., a California corporation Dated: By: Its: By: Its: (Acknowledgment s ) Exhibit C-2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND W~EN RECORDED RETURN TO: NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LIEN (Addendum to the Contract of Purchase and Sale and Receipt for Deposit) Tract Lot or Lots The undersigned Buyer acknowledges that the above mentioned Lot or Lots of Tract (the "Property") being purchased by Buyer from Castle & Cooke Commercial - CA, Inc., a California corporation, is/are located within and is/are subject to one or more special assessment liens and, possibly, other special district obligations, including but not limited to th~ following: Assessment District No. 98-1 (Brimhall IV/Stockdale Hiqhwa¥ Commercial/Gosford Industrial). The City of Bakersfield (the "City") has formed this assessment district and levied special assessment liens upon the Property for the purpose of financing certain public improvements and facilities such as roadways, streetscapes, parks, etc. The assessment liens for the Tract which includes the Property are in the principal amount of $ per lot, and, unless discharged by full cash payment, will result in an annual installment on the property tax bill of approximately $. per lot per year. Buyer acknowledges that the Property is within Assessment District No. 98-1 and possibly other special districts, and that, in addition to ordinary property taxes, the Property is subject to the special assessment liens levied upon the individual lots in said Assessment District No. 98-1, and that an annual installment on account of the unpaid special assessment lien for each lot will be collected on the property tax bill issued by the County of Kern for each separate lot of SF2-84140.1 40213-18-SS4-10/20/98 the Property. The actual amount of each annual installment on account of each unpaid special assessment lien will vary depending upon, among other things, the interest rates and the term of the bonds sold to finance the public improvements. The principal amount per lot listed above has been fixed, but the amount listed above for the annual installment should be considered an estimate only. Buyer further acknowledges that, while each Lot of the Property is subject to a special assessment lien, other adjacent lots, whether or not included in the Tract, may not be subject to a special assessment lien. This Notice and the disclosure provided herein shall be provided to each successor of Buyer~, and the obligation to provide this Notice to each successor of Buyer shall constitute a covenant running with the land of each lot the Property until such time as the special assessment lien on such lot of the Property has been fully paid and discharged. The Seller and each successive seller shall file an executed copy of this Notice with the Finance Director of the City within five (5) days of close of escrow for the transfer of title of any lot of the Property. BUYER SELLER Castle & Cooke Commercial - CA, Inc., a California corporation Dated: By: Its: By: Its: (Acknowledgments) SF2-84140.1 2 40213-18-$S4- I 0/'20/98 March 31, 2000 Kern County Board of Supervisors 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Honorable Board Members: On behalf of the City Council, I am sending you a.copy of the resolution which the Council adopted on March 29, 2000 regarding the Proposed Borba Dairies. The City Council respectfully requests your serious consideration of its recommendations. The resolution recommends: · That the County complete a county-wide plan and program environmental impact report specific to animal confinement and feeding facilities which defines where such facilities may be located, and identify minimum mitigation ~measures required, similar to the process used by Tulare County. · The formation of a.joint special committee made up of representatives from both the City and County Planning Commissions to make suggestions for the development of policies, protocols, and procedures for both bodies for the review and approval of projects on the fringe of city boundaries within the 2010 General Plan in order to balance planning issues at the City/County interface. · That the County of Kern take affirmative steps to facilitate the location of-an alternate site within Kern County and outside the 2010 General Plan boundaries for the Borba dairies where the potential for incompatibility between agricultural and urban uses would not exist, and, in that regard, offers the assistance of the City of Bakersfield in this process. The City of Bakersfield recognizes this issue is ultimately up to the Board of Supervisors to decide. However, the City Council has a responsibility to represent the citizens of the City of Bakersfield, who are your constituents, and express its concerns, while providing positive recommendations for the resolution of this 'issue. We also respectfully request that you give serious consideration to our recommendations, which we believe will help avoid future planning conflicts and promote better intergovernmental cooperation and joint planning between the City of Bakersfield and Kern County. Yours truly, Mayor 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, Califomia 93301 · (661) 326-3770 · Fax (661) 326-3779 E-mail address: mayor@ci.bakersfield.ca.us RESOLUTION NO. 3 2" 0 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF-BAKERSFIELD REGARDING THE PROPOSED BORBA DAIRIES WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield is pro-business, pro-agriculture, and supports the attraction of business and industry to Kern County; and WHEREAS, in attracting business and industry to Kern County all pertinent regulations should be clearly set forth; and WHEREAS, such regulations should detail the approval processes, siting criteria and land use relationships for such businesses and industries; and WHEREAS, the City of'Bakersfield and the County of Kern have a joint interest in the type, quality and location of development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan ("2010 General Plan") area; and WHEREAS, the City and Kern County are committed to a cooperative approach to providing government services, including development review; and WHEREAS, there needs to be a balancing of compatibility between the growing economy of the urbanized area and the growing industrial/agricultural economic base in the areas adjacent thereto; and WHEREAS, projects such as the proposed Borba dairies and other significant agricultural and industrial projects affect the City of Bakersfield and its residents, as such projects occur within and adjacent to the 2010 General Plan boundaries; WHEREAS, the City and Kern County should develop a coordinated, consistent protocol for jointly reviewing extraordinary and significant projects at and/or near the incorporated/unincorporated boundaries of the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports the protection of property rights within existing zoning ordinances of present and future residents, businesses and property owners and consideration of property values in all decisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and received comments from those who support the Borba dairies and city residents with concerns about potential environmental impacts as well as quality.of life issues concerning the siting of the Borba dairies in close proximity to existing and planned residential areas, schools, as well as the City of Bakersfield's drinking water aquifer and groundwater banking operations; and ' -. :", WHEREAS, opinions of experts have been presented both in support and in opposition to the proposed Borba dairies; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports the establishment of the Borba dairies within Kern County, outside the 2010 General Plan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the securing of an alternate site within Kern County would benefit all those affected by the proposed Borba dairies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct; 2. The City Council recommends that in order to bring clarity and certainty to the location of animal confinement and feeding facilities., such as the Borba dairies, that Kern County complete a county-wide plan and program environmental impact report specific to concentrated animal confinenient and feeding facilities, which defines where such facilities may be located, and identify minimum mitigation measures required, similar to the process used by Tulare County; 3. The City Council proposes a joint special committee made up of representatives from both the city and county planning commissions :be formed to make suggestions for the development of policies, protocols, and procedures for both bodies for the review and approval of projects on the fringe of city boundaries within the 2010 General Plan in order to balance planning issues at the city/county interface; and 4. The City Council strongly urges the County of Kern to take affirmative steps to facilitate the location of an alternate site within Kern County and outside the 2010 General Plan boundaries forthe Borba dairies where thepotential for incompatibility between agricultural and urban uses would not exist, and, in that regard, offers the assistance of the City of Bakersfield in this process. ...... o0o ...... -- Page 2 of 3 Pages -- " ~'~ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on MAR 2 9 Z000 by the .following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DeMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNClLMEMBER... NO'I~ ~-' ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER. I~ O ~ ~.. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER. FSOf,,5 ~.. CITY CLERK and Ex Officio~le~ of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAR 2 9 ~.000 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: BAR~T~r;', THILTG I~N) CITY ATTORNEY"6'f the City of Bakersfield STATE OF CALIFORNIA).. County of Kern) I, .Pamela A. McCarthy, City Clerk c' 'he City of Bakersfield, State of Cali[o(nia, hereby certify the foregcing and annexed to be ,~ fuil, ~ru,,; and correct.copy cf the original 1~50~U~bN ~,~-~)~) on file in this oifice and that I have compared the s:-.'.me wiih thc WITNESS my hand and seal this~day of Pamela A. McCarthy, (."L.' Clerk City Clerk By ,, JWS:jp Deputy City Clerk S:~,JOHN~UrbanDev~esolution-Borba.wpd March 30, 2000 -- Page 3 of 3 Pages -- March 2, 2000 KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attention: Barbara Patrick Supervisor, District 3 Subject: Shellabarger Road Dear Supervisor Patrick: The City has received letters from both the City Police Chief and the County Sheriff as well as the Fire Chiefs of both jurisdictions (see attached) requesting that the end of Shellabarger Road be opened to through traffic for safety reasons. You may recall that a petition from 89 residents of Shellabarger Road was received by the City (a copy was relayed to you) that also requested the opening of the road. The City has started the process to open that road, but a simple removal of the gate will not result in a street width that will be adequate for two directions of traffic. The City is therefore pursuing the purchase of additional right-of-way to finish the construction of the knuckle at the end of Pepita Way, and will complete a paving tie-in with the existing roadway on Shellabarger Road. As you are aware, Shellabarger Road is essentially a 3/4 mile long cul-de- sac, which has given both jurisdictions cause for concern with respect to the safety of the residents under emergency situations. While the completion of Pepita Way will help the residents of Shellabarger Road, another road connecting Shellabarger Road to either Palm Avenue or Brimhall Road would ease their situation considerably. I, therefore, respectfully request that the County look into the construction of a roadway connecting Shellabarger Road to either Palm Avenue or Brimhall Road. According to City staff, the County case map shows that there may be already offers of dedication sufficient to get a limited connection to Brihmall Road. --Page 1 of 2 Pages-- '-' S~'/TO0~ $]~, DI~]Jl_d ~ 0 D L~OT 9~£ ~99~ &~:O[ 00/0~/~0 March 2, 2000 KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Attention' Barbara Patrick, Supervisor, District 3 Subject: Shellabarger Road I would like to meet with you to discuss ways to mutually resolve this issue. I will be calling your office soon to make an appointment to see you. Very truly yours, BOB PRICE Mayor of the City of Bakersfield Attachments c: Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul Rojas, City of Bakersfield Public Works Director : Jacques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV-Subdivisions Ron Fraze, City of Bakersfield Fire Chief Dan Clark, Chief, Kern County Fire Department -Page 2 of 2 Pages-- .,o.0.,~,...~, .... .~.., PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Randy Rowles Company/ Organization: Address: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date '~/¢' You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Randy Rowles Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Subject: 9}7~'~'j'/.~/~ ~'~" ~/ f~f'~c'~J/"/'~V/~ / ~ ~-~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ,~./.~.~/J~l You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Randy Rowles Name: I~ <:~) J~. 14~ ~'/I ~/LJ Company/ - Or .,z t,on: Subject: ' '~)AJI.~,.-.~...~ ~(~ , ~,~ j ' PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Randy Rowles Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ./-~,/- You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair:. _. Randy Rowles - ~' "'. Company/ . · .. .. '...'..'.. :, :. Organization: c..~,~' "' Address: ~-"~/.~'~' "~'~1,~1/~--~ tZ~i~:~ / PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a SPeaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. Randy Rowles Name: Company/ Organization: Address: ~ 3 ~.~ ~ ~/.~,~, ~',~ 5 ~/3 ~'~"' ~'~ Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports .back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. Randy Rowles ., ...,'~i .'.'"~ ",i.'~'i"~i :,.:...'.' ..... '~"'. .... "i'"." .':..":.i Name: ' ,,J> 'cP,/'~/'"LJ ,v,~74.,,,~_...7-? .,,'~'"/-~------'"~-..,-,- ' ' i..'.'.- Company/ · Organization: '"' " Address: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council " Committee Meeting Date //4~/_ ~ You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. Randy Rowles ~) Name: Company/ ,-j~l/ Organization: / PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one sUbject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. Randy Rowles PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ! You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Randy Rowles ~ Name: ~'~. 0 Company/ P~::;~'{ ~' ~,~1./~ ~'/plC' ;~r ~r~/~-~ .~----~ ~.) I / Organization: ~ . Address: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~ 13 J[OG You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of ~teen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subjecL The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. ' Randy Rowles .... ' ........ "' '... -'~o PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date /- You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair:. Randy Rowles Name: 0 Company/ 0 Organization: Subject: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of f'~een (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. ..... Randy Rowles · i,'i'".'.'-' Name: k ¢LL #, . . ' ' Company/ ~ ~ '.'* ' , ..... Organization: Address: Subject: /Ch O/?. ~/:1 -h ~ ,'~ LI' PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Urban Development Committee of the City Council · Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject .', that is listed on the Committee Agenda. .... ~ .... ' Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair. Randy Rowles Organization: City of Bakersfield WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0015348 / 0b01 PROJECT: PRINTED: 1/13/00 REQUEST DATE: 1/12/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 13:21:31 .. SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: . S~'~'I': 1/12/00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/00 GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: BORBA DAIRY REQUEST COMMENTS ***DUAL REFERRAL TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT & DEV. SERVICES, JACK HARDISTY*** SALVAGGIO REQUESTED THE UD COMMITTEE LOOK INTO RESIDENTS CONCERNS WHO ARE OPPOSING.THE BORBA DAIRY AND DRAFT RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. STAFF TO NOTIFY KIRK GOLDING , SONJA SWENSON AND MIKE BANKSTON OF THE NEXT URBAN DEV. MTG. CONTACT NAMES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY MANAGERS OFFICE. ALSO, STAFF TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREPARE A RECAP OF KERN COUNTY'S ACTIONS TO DATE REGARDING THE BORBA DAIRY. Job Order Description: BORBA DAIRY Category: URBAN DEVELOPMENT CUM Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COM START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE / / City of Bakersfield WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018348 / 002 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1~13~00 REQUEST DATE: 1/12/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 13:24:08 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'1'~/~'1': 1/12/0~ LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 1/24/0 GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: SALVAC~]IO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: DSULLIVAN WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: BORBA DAIRY REQUEST COMMENTS ***DUAL REFERRAL TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT & DEV. SERVICES, JACK HARDISTY*** SALVAGGIO REQUESTED THE UD COMMITTEE LOOK INTO RESIDENTS CONCERNS WHO ARE OPPOSING THE BORBA DAIRY AND DRAFT RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. STAFF TO NOTIFY KIRK GOLDING , SONJA SWENSON AND MIKE BANKSTON OF THE NEXT URBAN DEV. MTG. CONTACT NAMES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY MANAGERS OFFICE. ALSO, STAFF TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREPARE A RECAP OF KERN COUNTY'S ACTIONS TO DATE REGARDING THE BORBA DAIRY. Job Order Description: BORBA DAIRY at~gory: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE /. / Excerpted Project Information BORBA DAIRY PROJECT Kern County, CA The information included in this handout was excerpted from the Environmental Impact Report and Draft Findings of Fact prepared for the Borba Dairy Project. PROJECT LOCA~ON The project site consists of 4,677 acres located several miles southwest of Bakersfield in an unincorporated area of west-central Kern County. The site is bounded to the north by Taft Highway (SR 119), to the northwest by the Buena Vista Canal and agricultural fields, to the southwest by Interstate 5 (I-5), to the east by the Stine Canal and agricultural fields, and to the south by agricultural fields. The site includes thirty-three separate parcels (184-070-14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37; 184-090-21; 184-100-13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; and 184-110-32). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes the development of an integrated dairy operation consisting of two modem "freestall" daides and supporting agricultural crop production. The project would include two daides of similar design and size located adjacent to one another in the central portion of the project site. Each dairy would occupy approximately 341 acres and would consist of a central dairy barn, large freestall barns for milking cows, corrals with shade covers for support stock, manure separation pits and wastewater ponds, feed storage fadlities, and assorted support buildings. Three to five residences would be constructed at each of the daides. Agricultural use would continue on the remaining land at the site (3,995 acres), producing feed crop for the dairy cattle. Dairy 1 (James Borba) would be located in the western portion of the project site, specifically the northern half of Section 10. Dairy 2 (George Borba) would be located in the eastern portion of the project site, specifically in the southern half of Section 2 and northern portion of Section 11. Each dairy operation would cover approximately 341 acres; the remainder of the site would be devoted to agricultural crop production. The daides would each support approximately 7,200 dairy cows and related stock; the related stock includes 3,264 dry cows and bred heifers, 1,092 heifers, and 2,730 calves. Each dairy would, therefore, support approximately 14,286 cattle for a total of 28,572 cattle at the project site. The milking cows would be housed in covered freestall barns located adjacent to a central milking barn. Each milking cow is provided an individual stall with a bed in the freestyle barn. The cows generally stay in the stalls except when they are walked to the milking bam on concrete lanes two times a day. The floors of the freestalls are concrete with the exception of stall areas designated for cows to rest. The floors are sloped toward a central feeding ~lane~ running the length of each bam. Support stock would be kept in unpaved, shaded corrals located within each dairy complex. Approximately 80 percent of the forage feed (primarily corn, oats, and aifalfa) for the cattle would be produced on agricultural land within the project site. The remainder of the forage feed and feed concentrate would be imported to the site from outside sources. The feed would be stored within each dairy complex in barns (hay) and on concrete pads (silage). PROJECT OBJECTIVES The applicants for the proposed project currently operate daides in the Chino Basin area of San Bemardino County, Califomia. The applicants are interested in expanding their operations by developing more modem and efficient daides to meet the existing and expected future market for dairy products. Current trends in dairy management promote an increase in herd size to maximize milk production efficiency and consolidate dairy waste management facilities. Given the potential land use conflicts between daides or other large livestock confinement facilities and other land uses, the applicants have also attempted to identify a suitable site that could maintain appropriate buffers from existing or planned uses that could be incompatible with dairy operations. In addition, the applicants need a large site capable of producing feed for the dairy cattle and providing sufficient area for safe use of manure and dairy wastewater as fertilizer. The 4,677-acre project site generally meets the needs of the applicants. The applicants' objectives for the proposed project are: Promote continued agdcuitural use of the project site; Use land available to and under the control of the applicants to relocate existing dairy operations from San Bemardino County; Develop a modem dairy fadlity capable of supporting 14,400 milking cows with support stock at a site located within approximately 90 miles of the center of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, the major regional dairy product consumption center; Promote environmentally sound and productive on-site use of dairy waste through ~rural recycling~ of manure and wastewater;, Enter into Williamson Act contracts for all eligible portions of the project site to ensure long- term retention of agricultural lands; Provide full-time employment opportunities for agricultural workers in Kem County. PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES The EIR identifies 19 distinct mitigation measures, many of which have several component requirements. These measures would full mitigate all impacts of the dairies except some of the air quality impacts. Air quality impacts on a project basis can not be fully mitigated because the region is already in "non-attainment" for certain air quality impacts. It is proposed that all the mitigation measures except one (anerobic digestors) become conditions of approval of the project, as well as other conditions being proposed by the staff and Planning Commission. PROJECT BENEFITS The proposed project will create the following benef~s for the County of Kem and County residents (in no relative order): Development of a modem and effident dairy operation that will meet the existing, and expected future, market for dairy products. Development of an integrated, state-of-the-art, free-stall dairy operation including roofed barns, individual stalls for milk cattle, and concrete flush lanes for animal waste. Development of a fully self-contained dairy operation utilizing rural recycling, such that all waste products are recycled onto cropland used for growing feed to support the dairy. Maximize milk production efficiency and consolidate dairy waste management facilities. Discretionary approval and control over one integrated dairy operation which ensures ultimate authority for the implementation and enforcement of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Operation of integrated dairy facilities subject to mandatory environmental controls, identified after a full public disclosure process and a thorough environmental review process utilizing the first EIR in California to be prepared for a dairy project. Retention of California market share within the dairy industry, in the face of competition from other states, notably Adzona. Economic development in the form of capture of the transitioning dairy market from the Chino area of Southern California to Kern County and the Central Valley. Creation of 68 full-time jobs. Generation of direct and indirect economic benefit to the County and region in excess of $170 million annually ([14,400 cows x 65 lbs/day x 365 days/year] x [$12.50 per 100 lbs]). Generation of part-time and/or permanent limited period employment opportunities assodated with the dairy construction, implementation of mitigation measures, required monitoring and reporting, construction of associated improvements, agdcuiture operations, veterinarian care, and other ongoing operations. These jobs and the local purchase of materials will have a multiplier effect in the community and region as those salades and purchases recirculate through the economy. Generation of property and sales tax revenues. Utilization of 4,677 acres of marginal soils for highest and best agricultural use as a productive, well managed dairy operation. Participation, as determined to be appropriate, in the Countywide Habitat ConservatiOn 4 Program or negotiation directly with the USFWS and CDFG. ~-- Placement of 4,677 acres into the Williamson Act agricultural protection program. Full participation in mandatory monitoring programs. Full mitigation for water quality impacts. ~-- Full mitigation for odor impacts. Full mitigation for habitat mitigations. Greatest feasible mitigation for air quality impacts. ~-- Implementation of a water quality testing program which will contribute to a countywide water quality database. ~-- Protection of areas of cultural resources sensitivity. Avoidance of growth inducing impacts associated with planned, approved urban growth. Maintenance of a minimum one mile buffer from all adjoining land uses In addition, the following benefrts would occur, related solely to elimination of the approved Pacificana Specific Plan: Retention of 4,325 acres (Pacificana Specific Plan) in agricultural use, that would have been converted to urban uses. ~-- Rescission of the 1994 Pacificana Specific Plan mixed use development thus avoiding the construction of 19,000 dwelling units, 811 acres of commercial and industrial uses, and 1,376 acres of other uses. Dramatically improved noise environment (traffic and other urban sources), as compared to planned development under the Pacificana approval. ~ Net improvement in air quality impacts for vehicle exhaust emissions (ROG and NOX) as compared to planned development under the Paciflcana approval as follows: -ROG: 104 tons per year (312 ~208) -NOX: 2,115 tons per year (2,119 - 3.8) ~-- Net improvement in PM 10 emissions for all sources at build-out of 148 tons per year (374 - [451 x 50%]) or better, as compared to development under the Pacificana plan, conservatively assuming a minimum of 50 percent effectiveness of dust suppressants required as mitigation. Water demand for only 2,500 acre-feet per year as compared to water demand for 22,300 acre-feet per year under the Pacificana approval (a 900 percent improvement). Improved recharge to the underlying aquifer due to greatly decreased impervious surface cover, as compared to substantially decreased surface water infiltration and groundwater recharge under the Pacificana approval. Preservation of 3,643 acres (4,325 ac - 682 ac) of habitat that would have been lost to development under the Pacificana approval. Using the County Habitat Conservation Plan per-acre habitat fee of $1,250, that represents $4.55 million dollars in habitat value. Elimination of substantially increased light and glare assodated with urban growth that would have accompanied development under the approved Pacificana plan. Preservation of virtually unlimited feasible access to oil and gas resources, as compared to significant loss of access under the Pacificana development. Elimination of 211,890 new daily vehicle trips (212,090 - 200) associated with build-out of the Pacificana plan. Avoidance of the provision of services, utilities, and infrastructure associated with 54,000 new residents within the Pacificana plan boundaries. PROJECT CHANGES TO AVOID OR REDUCE IMPACTS Changes or alterations have been made in the Borba project which mitigate to the most feasible degree the significant environmental effects of the project, as identified in the Final EIR. These include the following: As a part of the applicant's proposal, the dairy will be constructed using a "freestall" rather than open corral design. As a part of the proposed design, the area of open corrals is significantly smaller than under an open corral design, thereby decreasing the potential for dust generation. Manure removal under the proposed system is via a water flushing system, rather than tractor scraping which also decreases dust production. By design, manure management with the proposed facilities would be more efficient resulting in less odor potential than under an open corral design. Increased paving under the proposed design decreases the potential for infiltration of concentrated waste water as compared to open dirt corrals. Both daides have been specifically sited to balance to the greatest feasibility degree compatibility issues relating to proximity to adjoining non-dairy land uses. The applicants have acquired additional adjoining land to ensure enough acreage for nitrogen and salt-loading associated with on-site recycling of calculated animal waste. As part of the applicant's proposal, the Pacificana Specific Plan would be fully rescinded, thus precluding conversion of the property to a "new town". Both daides will be subject to Conditional Use permits, and an additional discretionary site review zoning oveday will be applied by the County to the dairy facilities portion of the site. The applicants will re-enter the entire project acreage into Williamson Act contracts. The EIR requires modification to the Dairy 2 boundaries to ensure a minimum distance of one mile from sensitive receptors. Operations will be subject to additional permits and oversight by the following regulatory agencies: Kern County Mosquito and Vector Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, Kern County Planning Department, Kern County Roads Department, Kern County Fire Prevention, Kern County Department of Engineering and Survey Services, Kern County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Department of Food and Agriculture, California Department of Water Resources, the State Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Caltrans. The applicant will be required to prepare and fully implement the following operational plans: Odor Management Plan (MM 4.2.3.5), Livestock Management Plan (MM 4.2.3.10), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (MM 4.3.3.1), Integrated Pest Management Plan (MM 4.9.3.3). Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5 (Odor Management Plan)identifies 10 performance standards for the Odor Management Plan related to manure treatment and application and two additional general performance standards, with which compliance will ensure acceptable mitigation (to a less-than-significant level) of the potential for adverse odor from project operations. The Measure also specifies that review and approval by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department and the California Department of Food and Agriculture are required, which serves to integrate the performance standards of those agencies as well into the mitigation requirement. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of less-than-significant residual impact is based. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.10 (Livestock Management Plan) identifies four minimum informational requirements of the Livestock Management Plan and identifies the performance standards of the federal Environmental Protection Agency's Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (incorporated by reference into the EIR), with which compliance will ensure maximum feasible mitigation of cumulative methane emissions from project operations. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of maximum feasible mitigation is based. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.1 (Storm Water pgllution Prevention Plan) identifies 3 performance standards for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, including the requirements of the state Regional Water Quality Control Board (incorporated by reference into the EIR), with which compliance will ensure acceptable mitigation (to a less-than-significant level) of the potential for surface and groundwater quality degradation from project operations. The Measure also specifies that review and approval by the Kern County Department of 7 Engineering and Survey Services and the Regional Water Quality Control Board are required. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of less-than-significant residual impact is based. Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.3.(Integrated Pest Management Plan) 5 performance standards for the Integrated Pest Management Plan including operational practices, biological controls, and chemicals, with which compliance will ensure acceptable mitigation (to a less-than- significant level) of the potential for increased vector activity. Reliance upon these performance standards establishes with acceptable certainty the evidence upon which the conclusion of less-than-significant residual impact is based. A-- The applicant will undertake a Water Quality Testing Program (MM 5.1.3). In addition, every identified mitigation measure in the EIR has been proposed for adoption by the staff and Planning Commission as a condition on the approval of the project with the exception of Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.6 (Anaerobic Digester). Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.6 reads as follows: ..... The project shall provide for an anaerobic digester treatment of the manure to stabilize the manure generated by the cat#e prior to land application. The digester system shall be designed to minimize the release of biogases through the conversion of gases to electrical power or other appropriate methods. The staff and Planning Commission, based on the information in the record as summarized below, have recommended rejection of this mitigation measure as infeasible: Economic Factors - The applicant would be put at a competitive disadvantage due to the cost of the first EIR prepared in the State for a dairy, the costs of other adopted mitigation measures in the EIR, the cost of environmentally preferred freestall type dairy design versus open corral design, and the costs of the digester technology in and of itself. The estimate of $7.93 million for digesters to serve the proposed fadlity would add $570 per cow on top of the other listed expenditures ($2,000 per cow if required in the first four years). The applicants have stated in the record that they are not able to feasible operate under these burdens. The October 14, 1999 letter from Dr. John Fleming of Mead and Hunt Engineers, and the October 14, 1999 letter from Executive Vice President Jay Goold of the Western United Dairymen specifically elaborate on the issue of financial infeasibility. The October 20, 1999 letter from the applicants specifically elaborates on concerns regarding competitive restraints imposed by this measure. Technological Factors - The use of digesters is not common in the dairy industry. Known examples of attempts to integrate this technology have been discontinued due to infeasibility. The technology is experimental and remains, operationally infeasible until put into wide-spread use with standard specifications and design. Furthermore, there is no experience in the Amedcan dairy industry with an anaerobic digester of the size or capacity that would be needed for this project. The applicant's letter as well as the October 21, 1999 letter from Dr. Deanne Meyer of the University of California at Davis address the issue of technical and operational infeasibility. Additionally, a requested change to move Dairy 2 further south was rejected by the Planning 8 Commission for the following reasons: The dairy was already required to be relocated per Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5a to ensure a one mile minimum buffer from all sensitive users. Relocation to the south would result in increased potential for impact to Lakeview School by bdnging the dairy closer to the school. Relocation to the south would move the operations into an area of potential cultural resource sensitivity. 9 o. ,,,.. u "O,O?.q January 18, 2000 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE RE: BORBA DAIRY- CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL #WF0018~48 Last Wednesday night the City Council requested an executive summary of the Borba Dairy EIR and summary of county actions to date. They are enclosed for distribution to the City Council and Urban Development Committee. cc: Stanley Grady, Planning Director ~.- John Stinson, Assistant City Manager Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst JH:pah CHRONOLOGY OF BORBA DAIRY March 5, 1998 - Letter from Kern County Planning Department sent to James Borba stating that the Pacificana Specific Plan would have to be rescinded to develop a dairy on subject property. April 9, 1998 - Applicants submitted preliminary review fees and applications. April 21, 1998 - Case went to Pre-Application Review Committee. June 5, 1999 - Application and final filing fees accepted. Began early consultation to rescind the Pacificana Specific Plan and to allow a CUP for a dairy in an A District. Early consultation period to close 7/22/98. August 5, 1998 - Received request from James Borba to withdraw conditional use permit processing but continue with rescinding the Pacificana Specific Plan. Processed as not having any environmental impacts. August 7, 1998 - Prepared heating notice for the General Plan Amendment - set for September 14, 1998. September 14, 1998 - GPA approved by Board of Supervisors (all ayes). November 17, 1998 - Marty Levine applied for grading permit for James Borba's dairy site (APN 185-070-29, 30 & 31). Authorize zoning approval since an injunction had not been filed with the undergoing litigation by the CRLA. Permit for work allowed "by right." Early 1999 - Administrative Draft EIR prepared by applicant. Summer 1999 - Draft EIR circulated. October 15, 1999 - Notice to property owners mailed. November 11, 1999 - Planning Commission final/advisory action to approve taken. December 1999 - Applicant requested application "referred back to staff pending further notice" (actual wording). March 2000 - Next opportunity for Board of Supervisors to hear proposed general plan amendment and conditional use permit. 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a summary of the proposed project and areas of controversy that have been identified by the public and public agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). This section also provides a summary of the discretionary actions required to implement the proposed project. 2.1.1 Proposed Project The proposed project evaluated in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consists of the construction and operation of two dairies. The dairies would be located on a 4,677-acre site about ten miles southeast of the City of Bakersfield in an unincorporated area of Kern County. About 4,325 acres of the site are identified in the 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as the Pacificana new town. The zoning of the site currently remains Exclusive Agricultural. The two dairies would occupy about 341 acres each in the northern portion of the site. The dairies would support a total of about 28,572 cattle, of which 14,400 would be producing cows and the remainder related stock, such as dry cows, heifers, bred heifers, and calves. The cattle would generate wastewater and manure. The wastewater and manure would be managed as part of a rural recycling system. The system would use wastewater (mixed with well water) and the manure would be spread on agricultural fields (3,995 acres) on the project site for the raising of crops used for feed for the cattle. The project also requests a rescission of the Pacificana Specific Plan, a plan adopted in 1994 for development of a "new town," mixed use development on 4,325 acres of the project site. Discretionary actions by the County required for the project (see section 2.1.3) include certification of thiS EIR, amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and vacation of existing roadway easements. In addition, a Development Agreement between the County and the project applicants or a Conditional Use Permit for each dairy, would be required to ensure that any mitigation measures required for the project would be applied to both proposed dairies, and authority to enter into Williamson Act land use contracts would be required upon project approval. Approval of various permits for comPonents of the proposed project by County and State regulatory agencies is also required. I Kern County 3 September 1999 BORBA DAIRIES PROJECT 2.0 Summar~ 99217bbe.sum.wpd.9/3/99 2-1 I 2.1.2 Areas of Controversy . Responses to the NOP indicate concerns about potential environmental impacts associated with implementation Of the proposed project in the following areas: · Groundwater contamination from dairy operations · · Effects of increases in school populations on the capacity of local school facilities · Vector and odor impacts to Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area · Degradation of air quality and generation of odors . · Impacts to cultural resources · Effects to mineral resources underlying the project site 2.1.3 Discretionary Actions The following approvals or entitlements would be required to allow the project to be implemented: · Certification of the Final EIR · Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan · Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Circulation Element to modify the proposed West Beltway alignment and eliminate section line and midsection line roadway alignments · Rescission of the Pacificana Specific Plan Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Dairy 2 (George Borba) (CUP 12 Map 141) · Vacation of roadway rights-of-way established by Parcel Map 8799 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Dairy 1 or preparation of a Development Agreement for all or a portion of the proposed dairies · Authority to enter into Williamson Act Land Use Contracts · Approval by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board- Central Valley Region of Notice of Intent to comply with General Waste Discharge Requirements for Milk Cow Dairies · Approval of various county permits for project components and activities (e.g., dairy operations, on-site septic systems, construction grading activities, fuel tank operation) · Caltrans approval if encroachment permit is required to complete any improvements 2.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' The impacts and associated mitigation measures for each impact analysis topic are summarized in Table 2-1. Cumulative impacts are also summarized at the end of Table 2-1. The table provides the text of impact statements and the entire mitigation measure that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level, if possible. Table 2-1 also indicates those instances where mitigation .would not reduce an impact to a less-than- significant level. These significant and unavoidable impacts include: Kern County BORBA DAIRIES PROJECT 3 September 1999 2.0 Summary 99217bba.sum .wpd-9/3/99 2-2 · Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from project operations · Potential incidental take of threatened or endangered species or habitat degradation Fugitive dust during construction · · Reactive organic gas (ROG)~ emissions during operations · Cumulative ROG emissions · Cumulative PM~o2 emissions The summary table (Table 2-1) also identifies the type of mitigation being proposed for each impact. Mitigation measures that are required by' existing legal or regulatory ' requirements are classified as "legal/regulatory" mitigations. Mitigation measures that have been developed for project-specific conditions or effects are classified as "project proposed" measures. In some cases a mitigation measure would fit into both classifications. In these cases, a mitigation measure may require actions beyond minimum legal or regulatory requirements to address site-specific conditions. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES This EIR includes an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed proiect, lhe alternatives evaluated include the No Project - No Build Alternative, the No Project - Planned Buildout Alternative, and a Relocated Project Alternative. The No Project - No Build Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. If that alternative were not implemented, the Proposed Project would be the environmentally superior alternative. I ~ Reactive organic gases (ROG) are hydrocarbon gases that undergo photochemical reactions that can result in formation of ozone. I ~'PM~o is particulate matter (dust) with a diameter of less than ten microns. I Kern Count~ BORBA DAIRIES PROJECT ,3 September 1999 2.0 Summary 99217bba.sum.wpd-9/3/99 2-3 ! ~ Type of Mitigation Level of Significance ':":' ~ after Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Sl~]nlflcance Level Re~julatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU 4.1.3.1 Potential Damage during Expected · Mitigation Measure 4.1.3.1 · Seismic Shaking (LS) None required. 4.1.3.2 Erosion Caused by Changes in · Mitigation Measure 4.1.3.2 Topography (LS) During the course of regular maintenance activities (i.e., vegetation removal), the Kem County Mosquito and Vector Control District (KCMVCD) shall inspect the slopes of manure separation 3its and wastewater ponds at the project site annually to evaluate if significant erosion of pit and x)nd liner systems is occurring. Formation of erosion tills or channels on the slopes in excess of four inches in depth would indicate significant erosion. If identified, such erosion features shall be corrected by grading. If the inspection of these features indicates that they are caused by uncontrolled runoff, the applicants shall be required by the KCMVCD to m-grade the area, directing the runoff to correct the problem. 4.2.3.1 Construction Related Dust Emissions (S) · · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.1 · (a) The applicants shall ensure that the following dust control measures specified In San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Regulation VIII are implemented during construction activities, as a condition of approval, to reduce PM10 emissions: · All disturbed areas, including storage Piles, that are not being actively used for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized to minimize fugitive dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover; · All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized to minimize fugitive dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant; · All land cleating, grubbing, scraping, excavating, land leveling, grading, and cut and fill activities shall be controlled to minimize fugitive dust emissions using application of water or by presoaking; Ke~. LS = less than significant S = significant · SU = significant and unavoidable (mm~mmmr m ..~mm lira mm~ mmm~m m mlmm m~mm' m m m. ~mmm mmmm mmmm mm ,,mmm, mm -I o,''~ ' Level of Significance ~ Type of Mitigation after Mitigation ~ Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Sl~nfficenoa Level Re<julatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU  · All operations shall minimize the accumulation of mud or dirt on adjacent public streets or expeditiously remove dirt at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions; use of blower devices is expressly forbidden); and · Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, the piles shall be effectively stabilized to minimize fugitive dust · emissions using sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. (b) The applicants shall ensure that the following SJVUAPCD control measures are Implemented during construction activities as a condition of approval to reduce PM~o emissions: · Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; ~ · Wash off all trucks and equipment leavtng the site; · Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 miles per hour. 4.2.3.2 Cof~tnJCflOn Related Exhaust Emissions · · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.2 · (S) As a condition of approval, the applicants shall ensure that the following centrol measures are implemented during construction activities to reduce exhaust emissions from constructto~ related equipment: · The idling time of all construction equipment used at the site shall not exceed ten minutes; · Minimize the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the number of equipment in use at one time; · All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained In accordance with the manufacturer's specifications; · When feasible, alternative fueled or electrical constructio~ equipment shall be used at the project site; · Use the minimum practical engine size for constructlort equipment; · Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic converters, where feasible; LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable  Level of Significance . Type of Mitigation after Mttlgatlon Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project , Significance Level Regulatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU  · Curtail construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations; this may include ceasing of construction activity during the peak-hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways; · Implement activity management (e.g., rescheduling activities to reduce shod-term Impacts). 4.2.3.3 PM~o Emissions from Fugitive Dust · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.3 · dudng Project Operation (S) As a condition of approval, the applicants shall ensure that fugitive dust emissions from cattle movement and maintenance activities at the unpaved corrals and other unpaved areas throughout the project site are effectively stabilized using a chemical stabilizer/suppressant that is safe for the environment and cattle. Stabilization shall be conducted in a manner that would not result in the potential for breeding of mosquitos and olher vectors. ('l'he applicants shall ensure that manure generated at the corrals is removed to prevent the manure from becoming a PM~o source; removal activities shall be conducted in a manner that would minimize dust emissions. ~ 4.2.3.4 Exhaust Emissions from Agricultural and Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.4 · Dairy Equipment during Project Operations (LS) None required. 4.2.3.5 Adverse Odor from Pro~ect Operations · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5 · (S) (a) The applicants shall modify the dairy facility design so that the minimum distance between . the nearest sensitive receptor and the boundary of Dairy 2 is at least one mile. (b) To further reduce the potential for odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, the applicants shall prepare an odor management plan that specifies standard operating practices for livestock handling, and manure collection, treatment, storage, and land application. The plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Kem County Environmental Health Services Department and California Department of Food and Agriculture. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Kern county Environmental Health Services. At a minimum, the plan shall include procedures to ensure that: Manure Collection Areas · Clean out manure generated at the freestall bams and corrals at a frequency that would reduce or eliminate odors; · Keep cattle as dry and clean as possible at all times; · Scrape manure from the corrals and bedding from the freestall bems and corrals at an appropriate frequency rate. Kev: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Level of Significance of Mitigation after Mitigation EnvirOnmental Impact and Legal/ Project Significance Level Regulatory Proposed Mltl~]atlon Measures LS SU Manure Treatment and Application · Reduce moisture content of separated solids to a level that would minimize the potential for release of odorous compounds during land application; · Minimally agitate stockpiled manure during preparation for unloading, hauling, and spreading; · Apply manure by incorporating Into the soil immediately after spreading; · Apply manure when weather conditions will generate minimal odor travel distance potential and intensity (e.g., apply manure in eariy mornings, during cooler temperatures); · Mix liquid effluent wilh well water prior to Irrigation (dllutlor~. rate shall be adequate to minimize odor levels and maintain appropriate nutrient content In effluent); · Immediately clean up manure spills; · Maintain and operate separation pits and wastewater ponds to mtnlmlze odor levels. General · Implement dust suppression measures to prevent the release of odorous compound- carrying fugitive dust · During project operations, the applicants (or other person designated by the applicants) shall respond to neighbors who become adversely affected by odors generated at the prolect site and take prompt corrective action 4.2.3.6 Reactive Organic Gases from Dairy · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.6 · Operations (S) The project shall provide for anaerobic digester treatment of the manure to stabilize the manure generated by the calfle prior to land application. The digester system shall be designed to minimize the release of biogases through conversion of gases to electrical power or other appropriate methods. !4.2.3.7 Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.7 · Emissions from Project Operations (S) None available. 4.2.3.8 Traffic Generated CO Levels (LS) Mitigation 4.2.3.8 · None required. 4.2.3.9 Increased Traffic Related Air Pollutant Mitigation 4.2.3.9 · Emissions (I.S) None required. Key:. LS = less than slg~iflcant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mltlgaflorl Environmental Impact end Legal/ Project Significance Level Re~julator~ Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU 4.2.3.10 Cumulative Methane Emissions (S) · Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.10 · As a condition of approval, the applicants shall develop a livestock management plan that would identify practices to reduce methane emissions from ruminant livestock; the plan shall be consistent with the voluntary practices incorporated in EPA's Ruminant Uvestock Efficiency Program. The plan shall be approved by Kern County and implemented during dairy operations. At a minimum, the plan shall identify: · Practices to control disease and maintain herd health, such as use of appropriate antibiotics vaccines, and other health maintenance products (e.g., regular deworming); management practices for sick and new animals (e.g., quarantine and treat sick and new animals immediately); and development of a health and medication recordkeeping system; · Feed quality and nutritional levels, feed intake levels, feed schedule; · Herd nutrition Including adding molasses, sugar beet pulp, grape pomace, brewery waste, and distillers grains into the feed; · Methods for selecting cattle that ara known to be efficiently productive. 4.3.3.1 Surfaco Water Quality Degradation · · Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.1 · during Construction (S) Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicants shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality dudng construction of the project. The SWPPP shall include: i· Specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. These controls shall include practices to minimize lhe .. contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP shall specify properly desig~ed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. Knowledgeable site supervisors and workers are an Important component of a storm water quality protection effort. To educate on-site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular training sessions to discuss pollution prevention. The frequency of the meetings and required personnel attendance list shall be specified in the SWPPP. Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable II I I I I I ... ....... ::~..~.::,~.-=.. , ...... · ~,~...~.....~:. ,~ ~ :..:..:.:. ....... .~ .~.:.~. *riil~iil::2.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND Level of Slgn~Mnce ~ of Mltlg~l~ ~ M~IgMI~ Envl~m~t.l Imp~ and L~.~ Prol~ Sl~nlflcan~ L~I R~IMow Propos~ Mlti~at~0n Measur~ LS SU The SWPPP shall s~ci~ a mon~oring pr~ram to be Implem~t~ by ~e ~st~n s~e s~wisor, and must incl~e ~th d~ and wet ~ather ins~ions. Regi~al Water O~1~ ~ntrol ~a~ (RW~B) ~r~nnel, who may make ~announc~ s~e inserts, are em~wer~ to le~ appropriate fines If it is determin~ that ~e SWPPP has not ~en pro.dy prepar~ and impfement~. ~e S~PP shall ~ subm~ to the RW~B and the ~ De~t of Engin~dng Suwey Sewlces for review a~ approval. 4.3.3.2 Su~ce a~ Gm~t~ O~l~ · · Mffi~ti~ Measure 4.3.3.2 B~mda~ at ~e Dal~ Facll~s (S) (a) All manure se~ration pffs and wastewater ~s shall ~ ~s~ a~ ma~ that ~sses due to infiltration are minimize. ~e s~i~ di~har~ of ~ste~ter · e ~ linem shall ~t exceed 1 x 10's cmls in ~plia~e ~ the G~t~hni~l, ~si~, and ~nst~tion Guidelines publish~ ~ the Nafi~al R~ume ~sewat~ Sew~ (NRCS) (1~7). ~is ~uld al~ resu~ in ~mpllan~ ~ ~ate ~ulat~s r~ulflng ~at soils lining the retention basins ~ntain at least 10 ~ment clay a~ ~t more ~an 10 ~ment gravel. ~e d~tgn and installat~ of ~e liner s~em shall ~ s~w~ ~ a q~l~ profe~ional (i.e., Pmfess~al Engln~r or ~ Eng~r~g ~t). ~mpling and pe~eabili~ testing pr~mm shall ~ desi~ ~ ~ r~r~e~e of all soils u~eflying all p~s~ ~ areas at ~ dairies. ~st~ of shall ~ ins~t~ by a qualifi~ profe~al to ensure ~t g~lc ~ter~ (e.g., channel de~si~) are ident~i~ and prope~ m~i~t~ to ensure i~ of liner. ~e liner must be pmt~t~ against damage dudng ~mt~ a~ mat~enan~ a~ies. Mechanical agitators, dmglines, or s~tion dr~s shall not ~ near the liner. (b) Clayey ~ils (~tch ~ur over m~h of ~e ~ar-suffa~ of ~e sffe) shall ~eflle co~als and d~ waste storage areas. If grading distu~ ~e natumlN ~u~ng near- surface clayey soils, they shall be mplac~ and ~mpa~ to ~ ~ment of the maxim~ d~ densiW. (c) P~ifive drainage shall ~ incl~ in pmj~t design a~ ~s~t~ to ~um ~t excessive ~nding d~s ~t ~cur. ~ unpav~ areas ere dean~, depmss~ns te~ fo~, allowing ~nding and increas~ infiltmti~. R~ular mainte~e shall i~l~e fllli~ of depre~ions and regmding. All grading shall ~ ~do~ so as to minimize d~t genemt~n. Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable Level of Significance' Type of Mitigation afte~ Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Prolect Significance Level Regulatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU (d) Any water supply wells that are located within 100 feet of the boundaries of the approved dairies shall be propedy abandoned in compliance with the Califomia Department of Water Resources, California Well Standards (1991 ) prior to approval of the proposed project or move the boundary of the dairy. Documentation of well abandonment shall be submitted to the County Planning Department prior to operation of the dairies. 4.3.3.3 Surface and Groundwater Quality Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.3 · Degradation Resulting fi'om Application of Dairy None required. Waste to Agricultural Fields (LS) 4.3.3.4 Depletion of Water Resources (I.S) Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.4 · None required. 4.3.3.5 Surface Water Drainage-Related Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.5 · Impacts (LS) None required. 4.3.3.6 Increase In Impervious Surfaces (LS) Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.6 · None required. 4.4.5.1 Potential Incidental Take of Threatened · · Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.1 · or Endangered Species or Habitat Degradation (a) To ensure that direct, indirect, and cumulative potential impacts to threatened and Related to Dairy Construction (S) endangered species are mitigated, the applicants shall: · comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan requirements for payment of a development fee for threatened and endangered species or · negotiate 'take" authorization individually for part or all of the entire project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable mmmm mmm m mmm mmmmm mmm ~ m m m m m mmMMmm mm ~ mmmm m mm mmm ~ ...... ':"- Level of Significance afl~ Mitigation ' ,T?pe of Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ I Project Mitigation Measures LS SU Significance Level R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (b) If project is not Implemented within 12 months, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 12 months prior to construction of Dairy 2 for all construction activities. Prior to ground clearing, grading, or eliminating ditches, reservoir, and fence line vegetation, a biological survey shall be done to prevent potential take of threatened and endangered species that have been identified to occur on the parcels or that may occur on the parcels. In addition, pdor to moving piles of broken concrete and pipes that occur on the site, they should be inspected to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox will not be harmed upon moving the piles of these materials that occur on the site, Open pipes should be kept capped or otherwise covered to prevent entrapment and harm to wildlife, the San Joaquin kit fox, in particular. Steep-sided open trenches that may entrap wildlife shall be provided with escape ramps and Inspected prior to backfilling to prevent entrapment of wildlife. ~ ,---.--.--. 4.4.5.2 Potential Incidental Take of Threatened · · Mitigation Measure 4.4.5.2 In the dairy areas, threatened and endangered species shall be avoided, and take avoidance or Endangered Species or Habitat Degradation practices shall be followed during normal dairying operations. The follo~ng specific programs Related to Dairy Operations (S) ~ shall be implemented: A program of endangered species awareness training (including vehicle operation instructions) for dairy workers and residents at the project site shall be implemented and taught on a regular basis to help ensure take avoidance at the project site.  All lights shall be directed toward the dairy facility and shielded if necessary. This will help ~ reduce or minimize any accelerated night-time predation rates on the dairy and adjacent agricultural fields. Around the residences and other areas where it may be appropriate, 4.5.3.1 Shoat-Term Nolle Increases Generated · Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.1 during Constmcflort (S) ~,s a condition of approval, the contractors shall comply with the following measures: All internal engine-driven equipment, vehicles, and pneumatic tools shall be required to use effective intake and exhaust mufflers; all construction equipment shall be fitted with mufflers in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards; all construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition. Staging areas and portable and stationary noise-producing equipment (e.g., ge~eratom) shall be placed as far away as possible from neaWy sensitive receptors. Construction phasing shall be conducted in a manner that would result in the least amount LS = less than significant S = significant SU = signif'~ant and unavoidable c Level of Significance ~_ Type of Mitigation after Mitigation . Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Sl~nlflcanca Level Recjulatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU ~ 4.5.3.2 Increased Noise Levels Generated by Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.2 · Additional Vehicular Traffic (LS) None required. 4.5.3.3 Traffic Noise from Major Roadways In Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.3 · the Project Vicinily (LS) None required. 4~5.3.4 Noise Levels Generated by Project Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.4 · Operations (LS) None required. 4.5.3.5 Noise Impacts Relative to Approved Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.5 · Land Uses (I.S) None required. . . . =.~ ;...':. ...;:~.:~::: .:.~,:~ :.~ , ~ ~:~:~ :~j.~.~:,;~:.~j::~;:~;~.:~.~i>;~ :.~:::~..:~ .: . .:~: ~:;.:~..:.,. ~::,:.~.....;: :~:.::~.:..:::..: ..:~..:~:~.::~: ~::~;~:~ :~:~:~ .......... ~':.~~':~;'~,~.~.~?.~¥,~?.?j~!T'~--~-: ~:i'iI;~.:.: ~::~'?<¥~1~::!~...~:!~:~:~:~?~:~:~.::~::.i~:~ :.~:~.:! ~= :'=:':. ::. :' .'.': :; :.~ :~i,::.:.:::':;~'~::'~:~:;~:~?¥~:T ." 4.6.3.1 Visual Compatibility of the Project and Mitigation Measure 4.6.3.1 · Adjacent Land Uses (LS) None required. '"' Land Use, populM]Otl, HO~llhg~.~:~.~:~ ?:~t ~:~..~,~;,~ ~;~ ,~;, ................. · · .. ...... ,:;. ~': ..~ ..... · ......... ...' ............. ..' ::.:~..:::~.~ ,..:,:~'. ~'~ :::.~.~..~ ;.:~ :~::~,~,~. ::.: ~':.~ ,~...~ .- · "~' 4.7.3.1 Consistency wffh Land Use Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.1 Designations in the 2010 General Plan (LS) None required. 4.7.3.2 Consistency with Roadway Locates · Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.2 Established In the 2010 General Plan (S) (a) The project shall conform with setbeck crltefla for the planned South Beltway along the Taft Highway. linking SR 99 and I-5. The proposed dairy operations and structures are not located near the beltway. The applicants may be required to dedicate an easement along the northern portion of the property to accommodate the future beltway, if it Is ever constructed. The planned right-of-way is 300 feet. (b) The southern segment of the West Beltway Corridor shall be modified on the Circulation Plan map to reflect the realignment proposed by the project. (c) Amend the Circulation element to eliminate the future roadway designations along section lines and midsection lines within the project site.. 4.7.3:3 Consistency with Roadway Easements · Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.3 · Established by Subdivision Map 8799 (LS) None required. 4.7.3.4 Consistency with the Kem County · Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.4 · Zoning Ordinance (S) None required. ,,Ke~: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable -u Level of Significance  T~ of ariel' Mltlgatk)n M!!lgatlon ~ Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project S;,~i~r, lcanca L~-.~| ; Regulator/ Propo?ed ,.. Mitigation Meaeure~ LS SU ~ 4.7.3.5 Impacts of Dairy Operations on Adjacent Mitigation Measure 4.7.3.5 Uses (S) Prospective tenants of the two on-site residences shall be notified In writing prior to occupancy that manure is dispersed on a regular basis on the agricultural fields adjacent to the homes. 4.8.3.1 Im~'o~r Olosum o~ Abandoned oil · ~ Mitigation Measure 4.8.3. t Following eonsu~aflon ~th the Dep~r~ment o! Oil, Oas, and OenthermM Wells (Dairy 2) (S) supervisor or district deputy and prior to approval of the building permit for Dairy 2, any abandoned wells which are located in positions that would be beneath approved dairy facility structures (possibly wells 26-2 and 87-2) shall be properly closed according to specifications :)rovtded by DOGGR. 4.8.3.2 Restricted Access to Oil Resources · Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.2 · (Dairies 1 and 2) (I.S) None required; ~) 4.8.3.3 Removal of Areas wtth Prime · Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.3 · ' None required. · " Agricultural Soils from Crop Production (LS) L ......... ~, .. ..... ~ ~:-~ ~.~ .~.~ ~. ~;~:~ ~,~ .~ ~ ~,~ · ~ ........... , . .~..~; ~ .... , ...... . ~..~ .... ~.~ ~ ~'~.~,~ ~ ~ ....... ~:~ Humafl:.~la~ ~:.~,~ L~ :~:~,?,~,:~,:?:.~::,:~:::~:~::~ ,..:::~:~:~ ~:: "'~:::~:~ ~::::~: :;:::: .?: :::. :...~,';:~:':: :!:: :':::: .-'..: :.~: :~: '::: :~: -:~ :..':: ".:. ~:~.~::~.?~::'::~. 4.9.3.1 Exposure to Hazardous Materials during · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.1 · Prior to initiation of dairy operations, the applicant shall submit documentation to the County Dairy Operation (S) Planning Department that all appropriate permits and notifications regarding the storage, transport, use, and dleposal of hazardous materials have been completed and acquired. The documentation shall include, at minimum, evidence of compliance with: · Requirements for preparation and Submittal of a Business Plan to the KCEHS; · RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements; · Aboveground storage tank permitting requirements of Kem County Fire Prevention; · Permitting requirements of the DPR and KCACO for agricultural chemical use. 4.9.3.2 Exposure of Workers to Residual · Mitigation Measure 4,9.3.2 · Agricultural Chemicals (LS) None required. 4.9.3.3 Increased Vector Activity (S) · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.3 · (a) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit documentation that the project is in compliance with all requirements of the Kern Mosquito and Vector Control District. Key:. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable I Level of Significance Type of Mitigation after Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Significance Level Regulato~ Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU (b) The applicants shall control mice populations by restricting access to feed and grain to the extent possible. In addition, the applicants shall retain the services of a private rodent abatement service, as needed. 4.9.3,4 Dairy Waste Pathogens (LS) · Mitigation Measure 4.9.3.4 · None required. 4.10.3.1 Roadway LOS Impact (LS) · Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.1 · None required. 4.10.3.2 Intersection LOS Impact (LS) · Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.2 · None required. 4.10.3.3 Roadway Safety Impacts (S) Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.3 · Improvements to Taft Highway (State Route 119), including acceleration and deceleration lanes and turn channelization, shall be as required by Caltrans.. 4.10.3.4 Conflicts with Circulation Plans or Mitigation Measure 4.10.3.4 · Policies (LS) None required. 4.11.3.1 Water Demand by Dairy Operations · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.1 · (LS) None required. 4.11.3.2 Increases in Wastewater Treatment · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.2 · and Disposal (LS) Implement Mitigation Measures in Section 4.3, Water Resources. 4.11.3.3 Increased Demand for Police and Fire · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.3 · Protection, Emergency Medical Response, and None required. Solid Waste Disposal Services (LS) 4.11.3.4 Increased Demand for Additional · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.4 · School Facilities (LS) None required. 4.11.3.5 Increase in Pail< Usage and Potential · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.5 · Impacts to the Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation None required. Area (LS) Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m m mm mm m ~ m~m Nlm /' mm mmm {mm m m m ! {mm mm ! m m m m m mm m m Level of Significance Type of Mitigation afte~ Mitigation Environmental Impact and Legal/ Project Significance Level Re(julatory Proposed Mitigation Measures LS SU 4.11.3.6 Reduction in Public Services Demand · Mitigation Measure 4.11.3.6 · Compared to Approved Land Uses (LS) None required. GlJlttJfatFl~:~ .~:,::.~ :~:.;:e~,;~ ;~:~"~...~::~ .: ~='. :~,:~:~;~ ~'=~.::: :~. :.:' ...,~ ::.:::.~::..?-~. · .~ ............ .: :~.: . .... :. ::..:.:: .::... :...:~.v..,: .... ..: .=.. 4.12.3.1 Potential Disturbance of Unidentified · Mitigation Measure 4.12.3.1 · Cultural Resources (S) If archaeological resources are encountered on the property during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall be suspended or diverted. The applicants shall retain a qualified archaeologist (i.e., qualified under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for archaeologists) to perform an assessment of the resource. Depending on the nature of any such find, evaluation may include determination of site boundaries and assessmef~t of site integrity and significance. Standards for site evaluation should adhere to appropriate State and Federal requirements (including California Public Resources Code Section 21083). Evaluation may include, if necessary, site mapptng and/or limited subsurface testing using standard archaeological methods. If after evaluation a resourca is judged to be of significance )umuant to CEQA criteria, a mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance with appropriate guidelines and submitted to the Kern County Planning Depa~lment. Mitigation could Include avoidance, site capping, data recovery, a combination of these, or other' measures as the situation dictates. Consultation with representatives of recognized, local Native American groups shall be reflected in the development of any mitigation plan. 4.12.3.2 Reduced Area of Disturbance Relative · Mitigation Measure 4.12.3.2 · to Pacificana Specific Plan (I.S) None required. 'Cumulative Impacts 5.1.1 Cumulative Increase In PM,0 and ROG · Mitigation Measure 5.1.1 w · None available. 5.1.2 Cumulative Increase Jn Methane · Mitigation Measure 5.1.2 · Emisslonslve to Approved Land Use None available. LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable ~:~ ~ ?~!~'~!:~i!~: ~i~ ~i?.~!~:.~:!!:?~:~: i~!i: ' ~'~ T. ble2-1.$UMMARYOFiMPAC~NDMmGA~ONM~SUR~(~In~ Level of Slgnff~n~ ~ of Mitigation M~lgml~ En~r~m~tal Impa~ and L~a~ ProJ~t Slgnlfl~n~ Level R~ulato~ Propos~ Mfflgatlon M~sur~ LS SU 5.1.3 Pot~t~l Cumulat~e Water Q~I~ · Mitigation Measure 5.1.3 ~mda~ On an annual ~sis, the applJ~nts shall retain a q~lifi~ pmfe~al to ~1~ a~ ana~e samples from ~ree of ~e exis~ng water supply wells at ~e sffe. The wells to ~ ~mpl~ am shown on Figure 4.3-2. ~e ~mples shall ~ submi~ to a S~te~e~ifi~ a~l ~mto~ for analysis of, at minimum, ~ium, magnesium, ~ium, ~i~, ~Hde, sulfate, 3hosphate, and nitrate. ~e list of ana~z~ ~m~unds and mlnem~ may t~uest of the RWOCB. The results shall ~ su~i~ to t~ RW~B ~ ~ da~ ~ r~ipt of the la~rato~ re~s. If elevat~ levels were deter, a~ori~ under ~e ~lJfomia Water ~e to r~uire fu~er ~vest~t~n a~ ~e ac~. 5.1.4 C~u~t~ O~mda~ of Habit of Ram · Mitigati~ Measure 5.1.4 ~ ~n~ S~i~ ~e ~un~ shall continue to impl~ent Plan and sup~d the pre.ration of the Kern ~un~ Valley ~r Hab~at ~sewat~ P~n. Key: LS = less than significant S = significant SU = significant and unavoidable mmm m mm m m ~mm mmmm mmmm m m m mmmmm ~mmmmm ~mmm ~mmmmm m m m OL lff rnia November 19, 1999 Board of-Supervisors County of Kern, California c/o Clerk of the Board 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Honorable Board of Supervisors: I am writing this letter out of a deep concern about a proposal which, if approved, would escalate conflicts between urban and agricultural development. On December 7, 1999, you will be asked to take several actions designed to result in the approval of the Borba dairy complex in the southwest portion of metropolitan Bakersfield. City Council members and I have received numerous calls from citizens concerned that you might be persuaded to approve such an intensive agriculture operation so close to the city, where odors, flies and other airborne pollutants will drift, and ground water could be threatened. This is not the normal run-of-the-mill farming operation that most of us expect to live with in this agricultural valley. This proposed 28,600-cow dairy complex is a use which your own ordinances rightfully identify as troublesome, even in an agricultural zone. It may or may not be approved depending on whether it is compatible with the area. That is why it is being given such close scrutiny through the conditional use and environmental review process. I am not a professional planner, engineer or lawyer. You will find them lined up with their packages of technical arguments supporting both sides at your December 7 hearing. But as mayor, I feel I must speak up on this issue which so many citizens and City Council members have expressed such grave concerns about. Bakersfield has been my home since 1947 and I have seen a lot of change and growth over the past five decades. It is apparent from some unfortunate decisions of the past that our earlier City Council and Board of Supervisors members very much underestimated the potential of our community. It would be yet another tragic mistake to invite and encourage dairies to relocate from Southern California to an area in Kern County where they would be doomed to relive the disruption and displacement they have experienced in Los Angeles County and are now facing in San Bernardino County. There once was a thriving dairy industry out in the country now known as Bellflower, Norwalk, Artesia and Cerritos. But it was overrun by urban growth. It relocated to the Chino Valley, where it was reestablished several miles from Chino and Ontario. The herds grew to over 320,000 cows in this new bastion of the dairy industry. But today, the City of. Chino lies up against its western flank and Ontario is in the process of annexing 8,000 acres of it. 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (661) 326-3770 * Fax (661) 326-3779 E-mail address: mayor@ci.bakersfieid.ca.us Board of Supervisors November 19, 1999 Page 2 If we are to welcome dairies into Kern County as a significant part of our economy, we must direct them to areas where they can prosper and remain economically viable for the long term. There are over 8,000 square miles in Kern County and even if we were only to consider the valley, there are certainly places much better suited for the dairy industry to locate than near cities. This proposed, very intense, highly concentrated complex of cows has unresolved problems documented in the environmental impact report prepared for it. These environmental impacts ought not to be foisted upon the many nearby homeowners who have invested their lives and savings in their neighborhoods. Nor should the water banks which supply wat~'r to city and county residents be placed at risk of contamination after years of work and millions of dollars have been spent to secure a safe,., reliable water supply. On behalf of the many residents of the city and county, and City Council members who have talked to me about their concerns, I ask you not to approve the Borba dairy complex proposed to be built south of Taft Highway, between Buena Vista Road and Interstate 5. Surely there must be better locations than this for dairies. Thank you for your consideration. S!ncer,~¥, / ~o~e, Mayor City i~ Bakersfield pit PUBLIC STATEMENTS.SPEAKER'S CARD Council Meeting Date You are invited to address the Council under Public Statements on any matter related tO City Business, except matters set for a hearing this evening. Comments will be received during the hearing on that matter only and no Public Statements Speaker's Card is necessary. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maxi- mum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. Council may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. ' ' No action will be taken other than referring the issue to a Committee or Staff. Any person who has not notified the Clerk or filled out a Speaker's Card shall not be · allowed to address the Council during Public Statements, unless approved upon motion by the City Council after being notified of the name of the person and the subject matter addressed. ..... Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the City Clerk before the Meeting. "' (Note: If your name already appears on the Agenda for a Public Statement, you .. ':' .:-"? ..... :" ...... need not fill out a carjd,,~ ~ .: Name: '1. Ir' ~_'_'~ o Address: ~OO Telephone: ~l ) ~3- ~ '- Subject: Op~o~;~c~ Statement Taken By: White: Clerk Yellow: Mayor Pink: Manager Gold: Dept. M.C, 2.04.110, G.C. S~t~n 54954.3 (a) & ~) Name: ~~ Telephone: ~ ~ Statement Taken By: White: Clerk Yellow: MaYor Pink: Manager Gold: Dept. M,C, 2.04.110, G,C. Sect~n 54954.3 (a) & (b) Name: ,~~ ~ Address: W~ ~ES~ Telephone: ~--~ ~ Statement Taken By: White: Clerk Yellow: Mayor Pink: Manager Gold: Dept. M.C. 2.04.110, G.C. Section 54954.3 (a) & (b)