Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/03 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM June 13, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: ~'~lan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: General Information 1. The State Senate has discussed a package of cuts to local governments that would cost the City $4.1 million over and above cuts already incorporated into the budget. Per the attached June 9'h request from the League of California Cities, we have contacted their representatives and our legislators to strongly communicate the serious impact the cut would have on us now and if the reductions were repeated in future years. The League is taking this more seriously than any of the past submittals or proposals - they are very concerned. At an average wage for a full-time permanent employee, that would be 83 jobs. Again, those would be over and above the 160 part-time and temporary employees, and 50 full-time, permanent positions already cut. A June 11'h budget update from the League is also enclosed with the key points their representatives have communicated to the legislators in opposition to the latest proposal. 2. Congratulations to the Garden staff for signing the Eagles - it should prove to be one of the memorable events ! 3. I will be off on vacation the week of July 7th through 11th. John Stinson will fill in at the Council meeting and the State of the City presentation for me. 4. The Public Works Department provides a draft final report for the High Speed Rail station location analysis. It appears the consultant is recommending the Truxtun @ S Street site as the recommended location for the terminal. 5. Stockton City officials have visited recently - they are considering a downtown arena, stadium, theatre and hotel complex. 6. The fiscal crisis has, of course, taken its toll on everyone, as you have seen from the budget presentations. Of all of our departments and contractors for services, the SPCA, who contracts with us to provide animal control services, has had the most trouble -"Honorable Mayor and City Council June13, 2003 Page 2 coming to terms with the situation. In fact, they have rejected the contract we have offered, which is in accordance with our proposed budget. The more recent correspondence on the subject is enclosed. We will continue to work with them, while simultaneously doing research on alternate forms of service provision, in the event the SPCA continues to refuse to sign the offered contract. Unfortunately, while we have been warning them of this since January, the contract expires July 1st. 7. Hall Amlsulance has informed us that Gene Tackett has resigned his political consultant position with them, per the enclosed letter. 8. The Keep Bakersfield Beautiful Committee held a golf tournament earlier this week as a fund raiser for the Liberty Garden memorial project. 21 teams participated in the event and the committee raised over $6,000. 9. Enclosed is the legislation that was introduced by Senator Florez requiring a "buffer zone" around dairies, but the size of the zone is not defined. The bill passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly. 10. Parks staff had to "scalp" Windemere Park, located in the newer area of Seven Oaks, in an attempt to get rid of a fungus that was spreading through the grass. You may hear about it, because it now has a fairly unattractive appearance. It has been reseeded and should look better as the new grass grows in. 11. Media articles regarding the State budget are enclosed: · Los Angeles Times, June 10th article regarding new limits on adult clubs approved by the L.A. City Council this week. The same attorney who is suing us is representing the adult businesses there. The restrictions that were just enacted in Los Angeles are already in place here. · Los Angeles Times, June 10'h article regarding the status of budget negotiations between the political parties. They continue their battles, but are making little, if any, progress towards resolving the issues and meeting the June 15th deadline to approve a budget. · Los Angeles Times, June 13'h article regarding: 1) the constitutional deadline to pass a State budget. California legislators are headed home for the weekend, no closer to a solution. 2) State employees began receiving the first of more than 10,000 notices warning them of possible layoffs. The notices took some union leaders by surprise, and they signaled contract talks in coming days as the government will seek concessions from unions to avert layoffs, and 3) Some Republican legislators, upon learning that their party leaders were considering a plan to cut $1 billion in funding for local governments, wrote to express their "grave concerns" about that proposal. ~Honorable Mayor and City Council June13, 2003 Page 3 12. The May report from the Police Department Special Enforcement Unit is attached. 13. The Recreation and Parks Department latest activity report is enclosed. 14. Responses to Councilmember requests are enclosed: Councilmember Carson Clean up of debris at 1100 block of L Street; Code enforcement actions regarding grass and weed problem on Madison Street; Councilmember Couch · Status report on the sump wall on Main Plaza, just north of the Northwest Promenade; · Code enforcement investigation at 4510 Steeplechase; · Status report on feasible options to enhance the screening on the north side of the Northwest Promenade. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pam McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JOHN W. STINSON~,, ~'S~IsTANT CITY MANAGER THROUGH: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: QUESTIONS/RESPONSES FROM JUNE 2, 2003 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS MEETING Attached are the remaining responses from the department budget presentations to the Mayor and City Council on June 2nd. Attachments cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager Department Heads Darnell Haynes, Assistant to the City Manager FY 2003/04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES Date: _M. onda¥, June 2, 2003 Department Budqet Presentations to Council Question Response Councilmember No. 10 Are there opportunities to lease the idle See attached memorandum from the Public Mike Maggard paving machine to other municipalities and Works Director. generate a revenue stream? (Raul Rojas) No. 11 A response was requested regarding the Response memorandum from the Public Mike Maggard consequences of focusing in fiscal year 2003- Works Director attached. 04 only on repairing pot holes and specific problem intersection areas rather than resurfacing entire streets. What is a reasonable allocation between paving and pothole repairs? (Raul Rojas) No. 12 Requested staff to evaluate the feasibility of Response memorandum from the Public Mike Maggard including streetlights in newly developed Works Directorattached. areas into maintenance districts. (Raul Rojas) No. 13 Requested an analysis of the additional See attached memorandum from the Public Mike Maggard revenue it would take to fund the Graffiti Works Director. Removal Program at a level to ensure 24 - 48 hour response time to all graffiti removal requests. (Raul Rojas) Date: June 2, 2003 Department Bud.qet Presentations to Council - continued Page 2 Question Response Councilmember No. 15 Requested a response from staff regarding Memorandum attached from the Public Works Mike Maggard utilizing the Keep Bakersfield Beautiful Director. program to assist with graffiti cleanup by ' participation in the adopt-a-wall program. (Raul Rojas) No. 16 Requested staff to evaluate potential energy Response memorandum from the Public Mike Maggard savings through the use .of energy audits Works Director attached. (third parties that perform this type of work at no cost). (Raul Rojas) No. 17 A response was requested regarding efforts Public Works staff, in conjunction with EDCD ~ Sue Benham to explore grant funding to assist with funding staff, is in the process of researching grant the Graffiti Removal Program. funding for the Graffiti Removal Program. (Raul Rojas) More research is needed. Staff will provide an update upon completion of all options. See attached memorandum. No. 19 What is the feasibility of funding existing Memorandum attached from the Public Works David Couch employees who perform work on the Director. Westside Parkway project within federal guidelines to minimize the number of General Fund vacant positions that need to be eliminated? Also provide detail of specific work associated with the positions and identify amounts and positions currently allocated to this project. (Raul Rojas) Date: _June 2, 2003 Department Budqet Presentations to Council - continued Page 3 Question Response Councilrnember No. 20 Requested staff to evaluate if Brimhall Road Response memorandum from the Public David Couch between Coffee Road and Calloway should Works Director attached.. be designated as an arterial. (Raul Rojas) No. 22 A response was requested regarding Response from the Public Works Director Irma Carson remaining work to be completed on Lotus attached. Lane and requested that staff complete that work prior to working on an action plan for the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. (Raul Rojas) QIIIgSTION NO o 10 B A K E R S FI EL D ........ ' JUN I 0 2003 ' I, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ..................... ~ MEMORANDUM '~"'~ .... ' :'* ' June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~//F'"~~, SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 10 Requested a response from staff regarding opportunities to lease the idle paving machine to other municipalities and generate a revenue stream? (Councilmember Maggard) Leasing City equipment to other public agencies is a complicated issue. Leasing of the City's paving machine is a feasible option; however, there are several issues that may make it impractical as noted below. In preparing this response, Public Works staff contacted the City Attorney's Office, Risk Management, and the Finance Department for their input. ***o The contract would have to indemnify the City of all liabilities, and require the corresponding insurance. This type of insurance could be cost prohibitive to a small city. o**o A large up front payment or bond would be required by the City of Bakersfield for any repairs or damage that could be incurred through leasing of the equipment. This would protect the City of Bakersfield against unexpected repair costs. The paving machine has many highly utilized wear points that, if damaged, can result in excessive down time and high repair costs. o.** The paving machine has many complicated aspects such as the heating, electrical and hydraulic systems. Without specific training and experience on operating the paving machine, it can be difficult to operate and maintain. City of Bakersfield personnel were trained for two weeks on the operation and maintenance of the paving machine by the vendor. The question of training the lessee is a significant one that must be addressed. If the manufacturer provided the training, the lessee would be responsible for funding these additional costs. Page 2 June 9, 2003 Question No. 10- FY 03-04 Budget Questions If City of Bakersfield personnel provided the training to the lessee's personnel, then the City of Bakersfield may be responsible for any liabilities associated with injuries or accidents on the paving machine. If the lessee's personnel are not familiar with paving machines, then the repairs could not be performed by them. This results in either the local dealer being utilized for repairs, which would mean additional costs to the lessee, or Fleet personnel sent out to provide repairs which would decrease the ability to repair equipment being used by City staff. It is anticipated that our service levels will already be negatively impacted with the current loss of three positions due to budget constraints. *5° Leasing the idle paving machine eliminates the ability of the Street Division to complete a project that day should the paving machine in use break down. Private companies that lease equipment may object to the City entering into the equipment leasing business. With the City not in business to make a profit, charging the internal rate would greatly undercut the private companies, while charging the private equivalent rate would put the City in the position of making a large profit. As background information, the internal service rate charged by the City's Fleet Division is $2,600 per month for the paving machine, while the standard lease rate charged by an outside firm for the same piece of equipment is $10,500 per month (Staff contacted a vendor who has been ased by the City to obtain rental equipment.). Using the City's monthly internal service rate of $2,600 as a Iow and the monthly rate charged by a vendor as a high, the increased revenue that could be realized by the City would range from $31,200 to $126,000 annually. Staff does not recommend leasing the paving machine to outside parties since the wear and tear on this. piece of equipment in the long run means a shorter service life for the G:\GROUPDA%Referrals~2003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 10.doc B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 11 Requested a response from staff regarding the consequences of focusing in Fiscal Year 2003-04 only on repairing pot holes and specific problem intersection areas rather than resurfacing entire streets. Wanted to know what is a reasonable allocation between paving and pothole repairs. (Councilmember Maggard) It is difficult to actually provide a certain allocation of paving versus pothole repairs, as both provide different functions but are in high demand. Pothole patching remains the Street Division's number one priority maintenance program. Pothole patching is a temporary fix on a street that is in need of resurfacing or reconstruction. It is necessary to combine this work with reconstruction and resurfacing to provide a balanced effort. A street with too many potholes may require more staff hours of attention and the citizens would be better served by resurfacing or reconstructing. As in past years, three street crews will be assigned daily to patch potholes and other miscellaneous patching assignments. However, instead of utilizing temporary employees to perform these duties, the patch crews will be staffed with regular employees. Using these employees to staff the patch crews has resulted in a reduction of staff available for the resurfacing and reconstruction crews. The limited number of staff has a direct impact on efficiency, as we are no longer able to prepare streets for resurfacing and reconstruction and continue with paving at the same time. In the past, two separate crews were available to do each function. Now with one crew available, there will be times that paving operations are halted in order to prepare the next group of streets for resurfacing or reconstruction. Potholes are identified through citizen requests and also found through the network of City employees that travel the streets everyday in their normal duties. Actually, the Streets Division receives more calls from citizens wanting their street paved, rather than just having the potholes patched. It is important to note that currently, there are more residential streets that are in need of reconstruction than resurfacing. Due to the required resources (large equipment and time it takes to set up), it is not practical to perform resurfacing or reconstruction on small areas. The Streets Division will continue to evaluate each location and utilize the best method of repair. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals~2003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 11 .doc QUESTION NO. 12 B A K E R S F I E L :)D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD [ ~- i~!?~ ~;i/?,,'' MEMORANDUM ....... June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 12 Requested staff evaluate the feasibility of including street lights in newly developed areas into maintenance districts. (Councilmember Maggard) The use of a Maintenance District to pay for the operation and maintenance of street lights in new areas is potentially feasible, but there are several legal and practical issues that staff must research before recommending implementation of a street lighting district. Some of those issues include: · Proposition 218 issues: o Ballot requirement of a super majority for initial imposition of fee - this should pose few difficulties, since the proposal is to impose this requirement upon new subdivisions which are still under one ownership. o General benefit vs. special benefit - A determination would have to be made as to how much, if any, of the benefit received from street lights would be attributable to the general City populace versus to that benefit received by the local residents within the district. That portion determined to be of general benefit would have to be funded by another mechanism than the maintenance district. o Increases in annual assessments due to an increase in the Operation and Maintenance cost for the lights - An assessment can only be increased with an election process, with the benefited residents approving the increase through a ballot. The alternative would be to index the assessment to account for these increases. · Equity issues - Only certain areas of town (the newer developments) would be paying for street lights, while other, older areas of town would not be paying for the same benefit from their street lights. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals~003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 12.doc Page 2 June 9, 2003 Question No. 12 - FY 03-04 Budget Questions · Determination of benefit- the assessment would be recouping the cost of power to the street lights, the labor in maintaining the poles and light bulbs, the replacement of poles, etc. Certain areas have a different type of pole and the differing replacement and maintenance costs would have to be accounted for. · Tracking of labor and material costs - an accounting system would have to be set up to differentiate in the labor and material spent on maintenance district street lights and general fund street lights. QUESTION NO. 13 ' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM ,June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 13 Requested an analysis of the additional revenue it would take to fund the Graffiti Removal Program at a level to ensure 24 - 48 hour responsetimes to all graffiti removal requests. (Councilmember Maggard) Staff had evaluated this issue during the FY 2002-03 budget process, and determined that an additional paint truck and craftworker position would be needed to reach the 24- 48 hour response time. This was requested in the FY 2002-03 budget. However, due to anticipated budget constraints in the next fiscal year, these items were eliminated from the current year's budget. Reduction in service has occurred as a service maintenance worker position that removed graffiti by pressure washing has been transferred to a non-General Fund activity. In April 2003, the anti-graffiti crews performed a removal blitz on the entire city. Before the blitz, response to calls was several weeks. After the blitz, the response time was reduced to 2 days. Only six weeks after the blitz, the response time is again steadily increasing and is now at 6-9 working days. Therefore, to obtain a 24-48 hour response time, the following would be required: · One additional paint truck: one-time cost of $135,000, with annual operating and maintenance costs of $19,000. · Additional maintenance craftworker position: Annual salary and benefit costs for the position total approximately $60,000. · Increase in operating costs (ie paint and supplies) for the additional paint truck: estimated at $13,000. Page 2 June 9, 2003 Question #13 - FY 03-04 Budget Questions · One service maintenance worker position to remove graffiti with the pressure washer truck: Annual salary and benefit costs for the position total approximately $43,000. Total one-time costs $135,000 Total annual costs $135,000 Another alternative would be to fill the two positions with current staff. This would result in individuals of the Plant Maintenance Section being transferred to the Graffiti Section. These individuals currently work on remodeling and general building maintenance. With the current budget situation, we foresee remodeling projects to be greatly reduced; therefore, minimal impact would be incurred in this area. General building maintenance would be negatively impacted. It would take us longer to respond to plumbing 'problems, minor roofing issues, painting requests, etc. This alternative was offered as another way to reach Council's goal of improving the graffiti response time, while limiting the General Fund monetary impact as much as possible. Total one-time costs $135,000 Total annual costs $32,000 G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 13.doc QUESTION NO. 15 1! JUN ~ ~ 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD , ~ ............ MEMORANDUM ....... ~ ~' ;',": ' June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOr. SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 15 Requested a response from staff regarding utilizing the Keep Bakersfield Beautiful program to assist with graffiti clean-up by participation in the adopt-a-wall program. (Councilmember Maggard) Staff has determined that it is feasible to utilize the talents of the KBB to assist Anti- Graffiti in obtaining more volunteers for the adopt-a-wall program and other graffiti removal activities. At least one member of the KBB committee is currently an active member in the Anti-Graffiti adopt-a-wall program. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals~2003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 15.doc QUESTION NO. 16 B A K E R S F I E i: JUN ~' 9 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ....................... MEMORANDUM June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECToR~"~L_ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 16 Request staff to evaluate potential energy savings through the use of energy audits. (third parties that perform this work at no cost.) (Councilmember Maggard) Staff has been approached by many firms promoting energy audits that would determine projects which could be done at "no cost" to the City. This is actually a "loan" to the City paid to the firm through monetary savings in energy costs. Recently at least two firms have toured City facilities to review the potential for projects. These firms have not returned with proposals because the City has already completed the most effective energy savings projects (LED lights, fluorescent lamp ballasts and HVAC upgrades) commonly recommended in such energy audits. Staff will obtain information about the firm interested in providing this service and make contact with them. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals~2003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 16.doc QUESTION NO. 17 i JUN - 9 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR /,.~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 17 IRequested a response from staff regarding efforts to explore grant funding to assist with funding the Graffiti Removal Program (Councilmember Benham) Public Works staff, in cOnjunction with EDCD staff, is in the process of researching grant funding for the Graffiti Removal Program. Already, one possibility has been identified, however, more research still needs to be done. Staff will provide an update upon completion of full investigation of all options. G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~2003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 17.doc QUESTION NO. 19 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 11, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 19 Requested a response from staff regarding the feasibility of funding existing employees who perform work on the Westside Parkway project within federal guidelines to minimize the number of General Fund vacant positions that need to be eliminated. Also.provide detail of specific work associated with the positions and identify amounts and positions currently allocated to this project. (Councilmember Couch) Last July, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocated to the City of Bakersfield Federal and State Gas Tax Funds totaling $21.9 million to prepare preliminary engineering, an environmental document, and acquire right-of-way for the Westside Parkway. A Civil Engineer IV position was created to oversee the development of the Westside Parkway, and this position is 100% funded from these CTC allocated funds. These CTC funds are provided to the City on a reimbursement basis after the City invoices the State for work performed or expenses incurred. And since these CTC funds are deposited into the City's ISTEA Fund, the salary and benefits for the Civil Engineer IV position are also paid for directly from the ISTEA Fund. Currently, when any other City staff member works on the Westside Parkway project, they charge theirtime to the project via their timecards, but they are actually paid by the General Fund. Then, on a quarterly basls, the Westside Parkway project reimburses the General Fund for the time the employee incurred on the Westside Parkway project the previous quarter. This is the same system that is used for all Capital Improvement Program projects funded by other (non-General Fund) City Funds such as the Sewer Enterprise Fund or the Transportation Development Fund. Alternatively, what could occur is that work on the Westside Parkway could be relegated to only one or two City staff members, and those staff members would then be dedicated to the project on a set basis. (full-time, half-time, etc.). The corresponding Page 2 June 11, 2003 Question #19 - FY 03-04 Budget Questions salaries and benefits of those staff members could then be shifted from the General Fund directly to the ISTEA Fund similar to the Civil Engineer IV position described above. There may also be opportunities for this same type of salary transfer to occur for the Centennial Corridor project which is also federally funded and also has an identified revenue source that is available for many years. The down side to allocating a position to the ISTEA Fund is that since this fund accounts for federally funded projects, anyone assigned 100% to this fund would be required by federal regulations to work exclusively on eligible federal projects. If a specified percentage (ie 25%) of am employee's time was paid directly out of the ISTEA Fund, then extra accounting would be required to make sure that the employee spent 25% of their time on federal projects. We are in the beginning stages of the Westside Parkway project and do not have history to draw from to determine which positions, and the appropriate percentage, could be paid directly out of the ISTEA Fund. The current method of allocation as previously described ensures that the General Fund receives reimbursement for any staff time spent on the Westside Parkway, as long as the employee uses the correct project number. In summary, both projects (Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor) currently use a mixture of engineer, planner, technician, and clerical support positions. These positions could all be candidates to have dedicated time allocated toward the projects and thus salaries and benefits funded directly by the ISTEA Fund. It is important to note that the current time allocation process already provides a mechanism for the General Fund to receive reimbursement for staff costs incurred on the Westside Parkway Project. G:\GROUPDA'~Referrals~003~'Y 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 19.doc QUESTION NO. 20 ], JUN ~' 9 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD '~ - ....... June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: .RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 20 Requested staff to evaluate if Brimhall Road between Coffee Road and Calloway should be designated as an arterial? (Councilmember Couch) Review of the May 22, 2003, draft Traffic Impact Study for the Westside Parkway provides the following information: Presently Brimhall Road is carrying 17,800 vehicles per day as a 4-lane collector which is Level of Service (LOS) - A. In 2030, without the Westside Parkway, the volume will double to a volume of 34,700 vehicles per day, which on the 4-lane collector would mean an LOS - F. If it were upgraded to a 6-lane arterial then it would operate at LOS - B. However, in 2030, with the Westside Parkway, much of the volume is diverted to the Parkway and Brimhall only increases approximately 15% to a volume of 20,400 vehicles per day. This means an LOS - B for the 4-lane collector and the upgrade is not needed. Brimhall Road as a collector will function as intended --- to collect traffic from the north and south areas between Calloway and Coffee; but its present use as a throughway would no longer be needed. Vehicles from west of Calloway and on Calloway would utilize the upstreams interchanges at Calloway Drive and at Allen Road. As a point of information these are the LOS thresholds for a 4-lane collect6r: A 18,000 B 21,000 C 24,000 D 27,000 E 30,000 (Capacity) Page 2 June 9, 2003 Question No. 20 - FY 03-04 Budget Questions The draft study also has information on the intersection volumes, which are more critical than simple lane capacity for determining the LOS in and urban area. Using the information, the LOS for the intersection of Coffee and Brimhall currently is LOS - C. In 2030, without the Westside Parkway being built, the intersection will degrade to an LOS of D. In 2030, with the Parkway built, the LOS will be C again. As noted above, this is because most of the traffic will be using the Parkway to go west and not Brimhall Road. Brimhall will serve the adjacent area and not be used as a throughway connection as it is today. Based on the information in the latest draft traffic study by URS dated May 22, 2003, the current configuration of Brimhall between Coffee and Calloway is adequate as a collector road. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals~003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 20.doc QUESTION NO. 22 B A K E R S F I E L D : JUN-92003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 9, 2003 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO~~-~.~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS Question No. 22 Requested a response from staff regarding remaining work to be completed on Lotus Lane and requested that staff complete that work prior .to working on an action plan for the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. (Councilmember Carson) Street improvements have been completed on the major portion of Lotus Lane, between Bradshaw and Brook Streets. The portion of Lotus Lane still needing street improvements is between Casa Loma Drive and Bradshaw Street. Before curb and gutter can be installed on this portion of Lotus Lane, the street needs to be widened to match the width of the street that exists from Bradshaw Street south. To do this, property on both sides of Lotus Lane must be acquired. Once property is acquired, approximately 15-17 utility poles will have to be relocated. Currently, there is no available funding for either acquisition or pole relocations. Until funding can be obtained, the Streets Division will clean the street shoulders and place a one inch oilsand overlay on Lotus Lane between Casa Loma Drive and Brook Street. The oilsand overlay project is scheduled to be done in mid July, 2003. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals~003\FY 03-04 Budget Questions\Question 22.doc League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 · Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240 www.cacities.org TO: City Officials FROM: Chris McKenzie, Executive Director DATE: june 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Impact °fPossible Budget Cuts--Contact Legislators and We Need Your Stories Over the last few days there have been serious discussions in the Senate of a package, of cuts that would include a $1.16 billion cut to local governments (cities, counties, special districts). This figure is being considered, according to Senate staff sources, because it is the equivalem of a three-month VLF backfill "gap" (i.e., the time between the end of the fiscal year and the expected receipt of new VLF revenues after the VLF trigger is pulled) and the $250 million R_DA recommendation of the Governor in his January budget. While a raid of local revenues of this magnitude to all local governments would be substantially lower than the one called for by the Governor in his January budget, it would still be substantial. The city share of such a cut may be as high as $466 million total. Most discussions center around the concept of providing cities, counties and special districts with one mount for their "contribution" with flexibility in allocating the funding, at the city council's discretion, among the general fund, RDA, or any other city fund. If allocated like the Governor's proposed VLF backfill hit in January, it would be about 40% of that ongoing mount for cities ($1.2 billion). The most disturbing aspect of this discussion is the consideration of multi-year or ongoing cuts. There is no justification for this, and we need to let legislators know right away that this is totally unacceptable. The LeagUe needs your help right now in communicating two things: · ' What would be the impact of such a reduction on your city if the state seized revenues of this amount? · If the cut were repeated in the next two fiscal years, what would the impact be? The League is actively communicating its opposition to any cuts and stating forcefully that it will not support any budget with cuts to cities or tempOrary taxes without the legislature putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent this from happening again. A cut of any magnitude would be painful, but ongoing cuts could be devastating. WE NEED YOUR STORIES IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THIS. Here is what we ask that you do immediately: ~' Assess the impact of a cut of this magnitude one year or for 2 - 3 years. ~,' Communicate it to your League Regional Representative ASAP so they can package it in a form that is useable in our budget negotiations. ~, Communicate your opposition to cuts to your city to' your legislators, and state clearly that any cuts must be accompanied by a constitutional amendment to prevent it from happening again. (Go to www.cacities.org/budget for more information and to be connected the online Advocacy Center' (www.cacities.org/advocacycenter), where you can find talking points to use in drafting and sending an online or downloadable letter.) } Please be sure to provide us with a copy of any letters yOu send. (Send to League Lobbyist Jean Korinke, email: jkodnke~cacities.org; fax: 916.658.8240.) Method #1 Estimated City 'CohiribU-tions t°"$tat Budget Allocation ba~ls: ~'L P'"'(including San'Franc~cO) .... '$ 466,000,000 Tot~ C~ Con.burn ., % Generaffievenue ~ ~03~4 ~mat~ % of · spent on OR.ND -$10~55~ 6% 49% ARCATA *. -$275,438 · 6% BLUE ~KE · -$18,660 3% 18% EURE~ -~27,030 . 3% 59% FORTUNA -$172,~7 6% 35% RIO DELL ' -$51,8~ CALEXICO -~77,729 . 6% 71% CALIPATRIA -$122,1 ~ 16% EL CENTRO . -$~9,396 5% 56% HOLWILLE -$96,1~ 7% 60% IMPERIAL -$131~74 6% 47% 50% ARVIN -$220,041 13% 53% BAKERSFIELD -$4,134,703 50/0 61%o CALIFORNIA CITY -$151,820 7% ' 38% D ELANO -$654,939 10% 76% MARICOPA ' -$18,482 90/0 MCFARLAND -$161,280 15% 48% RIDGECREST ' -$415,115 7% 47% SHAFTER -$214,742 7% 52% TAFT -$144,733 5% 59% TEHACHAPI . -$185,841 7% ' ' 39% 62% AVENAL ' -$255,022 21% 60% CORCORAN -$343,805 11% 49% HANFORD -$717,016 6% 50% LEMOORE -$339,254 10%o 790/0 CLEARLAKE -$215,750 8% 43% LAKEPORT . -$79,259 3% 47% Source ~3olemarrAdvisory, Smx~ces calcal'alfons ~ ~ Oontrotler's-¥LPalloca~3n'reporl~,; ................................... 6/7/2003 1:46 PM page 3 of 15 · "~ .... BOARD OF DIRECTORS UPDATE June11,2003 Chris McKenzie, Executive Director 1400 K Street * Sacramento, CA 95814 * 916/658-8275 * Fax 916/658-8240 * Email: mckenzie@cacities, org State Budget Update Thanks for any help you have provided in connection with our budget alert on Monday of this week. After contacts by local officials, possible legislative interest in a substantial cut to local governments has reportedly declined, but we are not taking anything for granted. Today we asked the League's regional representatives to work with city officials to make sure at least five calls were made to legislators from every city. Our legislative staff also communicated directly with legislators our strong opposition to any ongoing cuts. We also are communicatinq to legislative leaders that a constitutional amendment protecting local revenues from future cuts would not be worth the price of an ongoing cut. If you haven't called your legislator yet, please do.so today. Here are the key messages we used today: This proposal would cost California cities $466 million in FY 2003-04 - equivalent to a 56% increase in the continuing city ERAF shift of $827 million. (Note: we do not know yet how the cut would be done on an ongoing basis, but it is equivalent to 56% of the current ERAF shift) v' The "shift" could be ongoing - draining a total of $1,293 billion from cities in FY 2003-04. ,," Cities' status as net donors to the state - providing more revenue from the ongoing shift -- would grow by 50%. · These cuts are too high, and unfair to California communities. · No permanent cuts. Local governments can't afford another "ERAF" shift. Local governments were not the cause of the state's crisis. They shouldn't shoulder a disproportionate share of the solution. · Constitutional Protection Against Future Costs and Cost Shifts. Legislators must protect their communities from future state reductions or cost shifts, by placing a constitutional amendment on the state ballot to prevent further raids on local services. · Maximum Flexibility. Local governments should have the discretion to draw on various local funds to absorb the impact of any possible budget cuts. Please see the attached bar graph for fUrther information on the impact of this proposal. Proposed Budget Cuts: Impacts on City Revenues $600 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 $400 $200 $0 -$200 o :~ -$400 -$6oo -$8oo -$1,000' -$1,200 -$1,400 FY 02-03 (in FY 03-04 (in Difference (03-04 millions) millions) amount - 02-03 amount) 1. Booking Fee Relief2 $38 $38 $0 2. Public Libraries 2 $18 $0 $-18 3. Police Tech Grants (CLEEP) 2 $14 $0 $- 14 4. Traffic Congestion Relief 2 $78 $78 $ 0 5. COPS (SLESF) ~ $78 $78 $ 0 6. Public Safety Sales Tax 3 $135 $142 $ 7 7. ERAF Property Tax Shift -$779 -$827 $- 48 9. Redevelopment ERAF Shift -$71 $0 $ 71 10. City "Donation" to State $0 $- 466 $- 466 Net -$489 -$957 $- 468 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 12, 2003 TO: ~LAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ , FROM: {~/,~Al~n UL M. ROJAS,- PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT!¥~IGH SPEED RAIL We finally received the draft final report for the High Speed Rail station location analysis. It appears that the consultant is recommending the Truxtun @ S Street site (Amtrak Station site) as the recommended location for the High Speed Rail terminal. This is extremely good news in that it is what the City has desired all along. G:\GROUPDATWlemo~2003\HSR update 6-12.doc Final Draft Report MetropoJitan Bakersfietd HIGH SPEED RAIL June 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Executive Summary Purpose and Need ................................................................................................... E-1 The California High Speed Rail Plan ...................................................................... E-1 Key Issues / Unlmowns ........................................................................................... E-2 Airport Station ........................................................................................................ E-3 Golden State Station ............................................................................................... E-3 Tmxtun Station ....................................................................................................... E-4 Recommendation ........................................................... ~ ........................................ E-5 1 Introduction Background .............................................................. · ............................................... 1-1 Purpose, Scope and Planning Context .................................................................... 1-1 Station Issues Identified by Stakeholders ................................................................ i-2 Station Site Evaluation Framework ........................................................................ 1-4 Report Organization ............. · ................................................................................... 1-6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 1-6 2 The California High Speed Rail Plan System Plan ...................... ' ....................................................................................... 2-1 Operations Plan ....................................................................................................... 2-3 Patronage Forecasts ................................................................................................. 2-5 Business Plan .......................................................................................................... 2-7 Summary ................................................................................................................. 2-8 3 Airport Station Site - Seventh Standard Road Station Location ...................................................................................................... 3-1 Station Program ...................................................................................................... 3-2 Illustrative Station Concepts ...................................................... ; ............................ 3-4 Market Perspective .................................................................................................. 3-6 Service Providers .......................................... ; ......................................................... 3-7 Good Neighbor Perspective .................................................................................... 3-7 ' Development and Operations Perspective .............................................................. 3-10 Summary.. ................................................................................................................ 3-11 4 Golden State Station Site Station Location ................ ' ............................................................................... ~ .... '.. 4-1 Station Program ........................................................................................ . ............. .. 4~3 Illustrative Site Concept .......................................................................................... 4-4 Market Perspective .................................................................................................. 4-5 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Se~ice Providers Perspective ................................................................................. 4-d Good Neighbor PerspectJ.¥e .................................................................................... 4.-'7 Development and Operations Perspective .............................................................. 4-10 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-11 5 Truxtun Station Site Station Location ...................... ~ ............................................................................... 5-1 station Program ...................................................................................................... 5-3 Illustrative Site Concept .......................................................................................... 5-3 Market Perspective .................................................................................................. 5-4 Service Provider Perspective .................................................................................. 5-5 Good Neighbor Perspective .................................... : ............................................... 5-6 Development and Operations Perspective .............................................................. 5-9 Summary ................................................................................................................. 5-10 6 Summary Key Issues/Unknowns .......................................................... : .................................. 6-1 HSR Patron Attractiveness ..................................................................................... 6-1 Service Providers .................................................................................................... 6-1 Station Site Conclusions ......................... i ............................................................... 6-2 Evaluation Assessment ................................................................ i .......................... 6-3 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Follows 2-1 Alignment and Station Locations to be Evaluated - Bakersfield Stations .............. 2-1 2-2 Statewide HSR Service Plan ................................................................................... 2-2 2-3 Typical At-Grade Mainline Section on new Alignment - LTPRR Alignment ......... 2-5 24 Intermediate Station Configuration ......................................................................... 2-5 2-5 Intermediate Station "Off-Line" Configuration ................................... , .................. 2-5 3-1 Airport Station Site Location .................................................................................. 3-2 3-2 Bakersfield 4-Track At-Grade Airport Station UPRR Alignment .......................... 3-4 3-3 Airport Station Site Vicinity Map ........................................................................... 3-4 3-4 Illustrative Airport Station Site ................ .. .............................................................. 3-4 3-5 Airport Station Eastside Vicinity Map .................................................................... 3-5 3-6 Illustrative Airport Station Eastside Site ............................ ~ .................................... 3-5 3-7 Parcel Map - 7th Standard Site ............... . ............................................................... 3-10 4-1 Golden State Station Site Location .............. , ............. i ............. ~ ..................... , ........4-1 4-2 4-Track At-Grade Station - Golden Gate Station UPRR Alignment .... : ................ 4-4 4-3 Illustrative Golden State Station Site ....................................................................... 4-4 4-4 Parcel Map - Golden State Station Site .................................................................. 4-9 5-1 Truxtun Station Site Location .............................. : .................................. ., ............... 5-1 5-2 Possible Interchange Configurations - Centennial Corridor Downtown ................ 5-1 5-3 Truxtun Station/Centennial Freeway Cross-Section Concept ................................ · 5-1 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5~4 4-Track Aerial Staton - Tm×tun Station BNSF Alignment .................................. 5-2 5-5 2-Track At-Grade Station - Tm×tm~ Station T~ Ali~ment ............................. 5-6 Illustrated Truxtun Station Concept A ............................................................ '. ....... 5-3 5-7 Illustrative Truxtun Station Concept B ............ i ...................................................... 5-4 5-8 IllUstrative Truxtun Station Concept C ................................................................... 5-4 5-9 Parcel Map - East of Amtrak Station ..................................................................... 5-9 5-10 Parcel Map- Amtrak/Truxtun Site ......................................................................... 5-9 TABLES Table 2-1 Comparison of Rail Approximate Travel Times - Bakersfield Station .................. 2-2 2-2 Proposed HSR Train Arrivals at Bakersfield Station .............................................. 2-4 3-1 Airport Site Assessor Parcel Number,~ Ownership, Value ...................................... 3-13 4-1' Golden State and "M" Site Assessor Parcel Number, Ownership, Value .............. 4-12 5-1 Amtrak Truxtun Site Assessor Parcel Number, Ownership, Value ........................ 5-11 5-2 Truxtun East of Amtrak Site Assessor Parcel Number, Ownership, Value ............ 5-12 6-1 Station Evaluation Summary .................................................................................. 6-4 Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Appendix B: Community / Interest Group Interview Summary Appehdix C: Community Open House - Public Comments 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Impact Analysis is to determine a community preferred station site for Bakersfield's future high speed rail station. The Kern Transportation Foundation had previously (2001) identified three site areas as offering the greatest promise: Airport Area, Golden State/M Street, and Truxmn Avenue/S street. The new assessment of each of these three potential station sites was · performed considering a range of issues including station design characteristics, operational constraints, technical service requirements, access consideration, site acquisition, physical and environmental constraints, land use compatibility, growth considerations, and multi-modal connectivity. A series of outreach meetings was conducted in order to understand community objectives and preferences for a station site. Depending on the physical and land use constraints for each site, several illustrative concept plans were developed. PURPOSE AND NEED ' The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is in the process of completing their EIR/EIS for the HSR system. The EIR/EIS process is not site specific in terms of station locations. Two HSR service routes, San Diego to San Francisco and San Diego to Sacramento will be served by a Bakersfield Station. Kern COG has commissioned this Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Impact Analysis to recommend a locally preferred station site to be forwarded to the CHSRA. This study is not intended to include final station design concepts or cite specific environmental impacts, but rather be used as a tool for CHSRA to uriderstand the Bakersfield's comm~.mity concerns as well as potential partnering opportunities. THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN In order to understand the opportunities and concerns of each potential station site, features of the High Speed Rail Plan relating to station design were reviewed including service routes, station stops, relationship to Amtrak service, travel' times, fare schedule, and the schedule for system development. Two basic types of HSR stations possibly could be developed in Bakersfield. For station sites .located directly along the main HSR alignment, four track main line stations would be constructed. For station sites not directly located along the main HSR alignment, a two track "off-line" station would be constructed. The HSR Plan proposes a 16 year development period for HSR with service beginning around 2020. Two rail corridors in the Central Valley, the Union Pacific or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, could potentially serve high speed passenger rail service and two basic alignment options could be used to link Bakersfield with Los Angeles. The EIS is currently investigating whether to link Bakersfield to Los Angeles via the Grapevine or via Tehachapi. The alignment choice could have important implications for the Bakersfield Station site. Both the Airport and the Golden State station sites are located directly along the UP corridor, while the Truxtun site is located along the BNSF 3861 '10 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF: GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY corridor. According to the CHSRA, however, any of these alignments could potentially support each of the three station sites. The station site evaluation review took into account that the HSR Plan had only initial cost estimates with a number of important unknowns including approach and departure corridors for Bakersfield, potential Bakersfield commuter markets, long term relationship with Amtrak, and the inclusion of off-line stations along with CHSRA's funding responsibility. The costs for off-line stations have yet to be publicly defined, but would appear to be in excess of $25 million per mile for double track HSR facilities. Although these financial details were not available, the HSR Plan did provide specific physical, plans for the stations. These plans provided critical features such as track cross sections, station cross sections and transition track requirements between the mainline tracks and the station tracks. The Bakersfield station would require 1,300 foot passenger platforms, around 18,900 square feet of building area, and approximately 750 parking spaces. Mainline stations would have a 141 foot wide platform area cross section and would need 1.5 mile acceleration/deceleration transition station tracks. Off-line stations would not require station area transition tracks at the stations themselves and would have a cross section of 80 feet. KEY ISSUES/UNKNOWNS A number of unlmowns will have important bearing on selection of the best HSR station site for Bakersfield. · Alignment (BNSF versus UP. north of Bakersfield and Grapevine versus Tehachapi south of Bakersfield) selected for HSR service in the Valley; · The post-HSR furore for the Amtrak San Joaquin service; · ' CHSRA's definition of the "Base System"- will it include off-line station access track costs? Willingness of UP and BNSF to share their rights of way as well as other rail upgrade inVestment coordination; · . Decisions regarding the Crosstown Centennial Freeway and .the Golden State Freeway; · The Southern California Association of Government's feasibility finding regarding Meadows Field's role as a satellite regional airport serving the Los Angeles Region; ·The difficulty and cost of property acquisition and relocation efforts as well as how these relate to freeway development efforts; and · Findings from the systemwide HSR EIS. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS E-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AIRPORT STATION The Kern Transportation .Foundation Study identified the station along the west side of the UP main line railroad tracks, just south of 7th Standard Road. The on-going HSR EIS identifies the station site to be on the east side of SR-99 just south of 7th Standard Road. For the Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis, both potential station sites were assessed understanding that the east side site is most favored by CHSRA. A four track main line HSR station is anticipated for this site. The Airport Station site was envisioned to complement the expansion 'of Meadows Field Airport. Although there is a campaign to develop Meadows Field Airport into a satellite airport serving the Los Angeles Region, specific financial and marketing demand studies have yet to be finalized. The potential success of the Airport station site is dependent on several unknowns as well as mitigation of several problematic issues. Selection of the Tehachapi route for HSR between Los Angeles and Bakersfield would appear to complicate the vision of Meadows Field becoming a satellite regional airport. This route would also serve another possible satellite airport in Palmdale. Building a successful relationship between Meadows Field Airport and the HSR site would also require additional costs to create a seamless connection with the airport passenger terminal and the HSR station. GOLDEN STATE STATION The Golden State Station site was identified by the Kern Transportation Foundation to be along Golden State Avenue near M Street. A HSR station at Golden State would be a four-track at grade mainline station. The best site for the station would be south of the UP tracks between the Kern Canal and Chester Avenue as identified by the HSR EIS. Details of plans to upgrade Golden State Avenue into a higher capacity expressway/freeway facility have not yet been finalized. If freeway plans were to eliminate access and or cover this site with an elevated freeway structure, another site might prove more attractive for a HSR station along the Golden State corridor. Three site areas were examined to determine which would offer the best potential access and economic revitalizatiOn. A station site centered on Chester Avenue would concentrate too much traffic immediately in front of the depot building as well as having only limited space for the station and circulation. The M Street site could be problematic due to limited site depth and the high traffic speeds from the Niles off-ramp. A station located at the F Street appears to offer the greatest promise along this corridor in terms of access and economic development. Details of plans for an upgraded Golden State · Freeway running elevated between the UP tracks and Golden State Avenue would have a major influence on a station.development located south of the UP tracks. If the freeway plans preclude the opportunity to site an attractive station south of the tracks, it might be necessary to develop the HSR station on the north side of the UP tracks. A station located on the north side of the UP tracks would conflict with the established residential neighborhood on the north side (parking and traffic) and also'would be perceived as very remote from the downtown core. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS E-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The success of the Golden State Station site would be dependent on potential environmental and community impacts. A station located south of the tracks could be developed with minimal adverse traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties, but property acquisition would be difficult and may involve significant relocation costs. Acquisition of the station site would require displacement of private and public owned business including those related to Restoration Village. The station does show potential related economic benefits to surrounding areas with connections to a variety of small businesses as well as various office and mixed used developments. The presence of an elevated freeway and Golden State Avenue between the HSR station and potential development areas would limit economic benefits. For stations located on the north side of the tracks, potential benefits would be further limited by the width of the UP and HSR rail corridor. TRUXTUN STATION The Truxtun Station site was defined .by the Kern Transportation Foundation to be located within a half-mile of the current Amtrak station. It is west of Union Avenue and east of Chester Avenue along the BNSF corridor. The HSR EIS has identified the station site between S Street and Sonora Street as the most promising area, but has indicated a possible alternative with a north-south orientation along Union Avenue. The BNSF has a · large freight yard located .along west of the Truxtun site and has-at-grade crossings at N Street and L Street. The Truxtun Station is located within walldng distance of the downtown area including two-hotels, the convention center, many government office buildings and Bakersfield's new Ice Center and neTM McMurtrey Aquatic Center A HSR station could be developed for this area in a number of ways depending on decisions: regarding the Crosstown Centennial Freeway; regarding the post-HSR future of Amtrak's San Joaquin service; and regarding BNSF's interest improving its freight yard. The Truxtun Station design would be possible whether the HSR alignments follow along the UP corridor or the BNSF corridor. If the UP corridor is selected, then the Truxtun Station would' be an off-line two track station and no additional right of way would be required aside from air rights over the BNSF Yard. If the BNSF line is selected, then the Truxtun Station would become a four track main line station mandating an elevated station. Connections to other modal uses would be simplest at the Truxtun Station. Amtrak and Greyhound connections have existing facilities at or nearby the station site while. Golden Empire Transit service presently serves the Downtown Transit Center via Truxtun and Q Streets. This Proximity would facilitate passenger transfer connections, sharing of the Amtrak feeder bus terminal and possibly even the sharing of an expanded station. For the Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis, three illustrative site concept plans were prepared for this site. ' Concept A demonstrates the statiOn north of the BNSF line if the Crosstown Centennial Freeway is constructed parallel to-the BNSF aligranent. This concept would require 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS E-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY access improvements by realigning the proposed freeway'access ramps to a more north/south alignment and providing station driveways to/from the freeway frontage road. This will allow parking to be provided under the freeway structure. The north side of the station would provide the best pedestrian and transit access to the Downtown. Due to the Crosstown Centennial Freeway's location immediately south of the HSR alignment, most of the economic stimulus benefits associated with HSR would likely be oriented north of Truxtun Avenue. Concept B shows the Station if a Crosstown Centennial Freeway is not constructed in the BNSF corridor. There are existing plans that detail the construction of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway, but implementation is contingent on the environmental review, which could change the design or alignment. Without the elevated Centennial Freeway the area south of the elevated HSR tracks would have greater potential for HSR related redevelopment and economic benefit. The station depot and parking would be located on the south side of the BNSF tracks. Concept C illustrates a station development plan if the Truxtun Station is an off-line station along the-UP corridor and Amtrak San Joaquin service is discontinued. This would run HSR trains at-grade through the existing station and possibly coordinate with BNSF to expand their of freight yard in return for additional right of way. A three-level parking structure would need to be constructed along the south side of the tracks along with a pedestrian overpass connecting it to the station depot. The Truxtun site is very accessible from the Downtown. Completion of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway can further increase regional accessibility by highway to the station vicinity. The adjoining land uses hold the best economic potential around this station site with redevelopment projects and activities currently underway. There is minimal displacement of businesses and relatively simple right of way acquisition. This site offers the best opportunities for the station to serve as a catalyst for new economic downtown development., RECOMMENDATION While all three station site vicinities appear capable of supporting high speed rail service, the Truxtun site is recommended as the most attractive site for the Bakersfield Region. All three of the identified statiOn site vicinities appear to be physically developable into a station to serve future high speed rail patrons. The Truxtun site has all the strengths of the Golden State station vicinity and is not dependent on decisions external to CHSRA and Kern County local governments, as required by the 7th Standard Road Airport site. Unknowns and Ch'allenges Related to .]th Standard Road Site The 7th Standard Road site vicinity is primarily favored by the Department of Airports. A high speed rail station is seen as an important element towards supporting the development of Meadows Field into a Los Angeles regional airport. AirpOrt staff envisions 11 to 19 million annual air passengers potentially choosing MeadoWs Field in the future. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS E-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southern California Association of Governments is currently in the process of updating the regional airport plan with cbnsideration for an expanded role for Meadows Field as well as for Palmdale and other airports. It is unknown if the SCAG study will support a major role for Meadows Field and it is also unknown if the single main runway configuration at Meadows Field could be improved to support vastly more flights. Lastly, it is unknown if the airport's surrounding residents .will favor a dramatic increase in air traffic. It is clear that for a high speed rail connection to the airport to be successful transfers of passengers and baggage will need to be seamlessly convenient (perceived as a single terminal). The new airport passenger terminal that is about to be built is located on the opposite side of the airfield (east) from the HSR corridor (west). While it is true that an automated peoplemover system could be used to bridge the distance, it would unlikely be perceived as providing a seamless transfer and a redundant system would need to be available for baggage and passengers when the peoplemover system was out of order. Relocating the airport passenger terminal to the west side of the airfield could help minimize these connection weaknesses. It is also clear that the 30,000 plus daily passengers envisioned for the future Meadows Field exceeds the total ridership that is forecast for the High Speed Rail system (10 million annual passengers). Thus, the airport's demand on HSR system capacity would be very substantial warranting an overlay of its 'own airporter trains between LA and Bakersfield and perhaps warranting a second Bakersfield station. Downtown Station Sites Both Downtown station sites are located along transportation corridors where new freeways are planned. Potential opportunities associated with addition of freeways to UP and BNSF transportation corridors include: masking of HSR noise and visual impacts; and coordination of right of way acquisition. Challenges for HSR associated with the new freeway projects include: limitation of station access; barrier effects on development and cross corridor mobility and vertical and horizontal physical conflicts between rail and highway systems. The planned Golden State freeway is understood to be on the south side of the UP tracks, separating the HSR corridor from the downtown core. The Centennial Freeway project is understood to be planned on the south side of the BNSF tracks near the Amtrak Station. As such, the Centennial Freeway would increase the cross corridor mobility barrier to the south of HSR, but would not separate HSR from the downtown core. Patronage - Patronage studies for the high speed rail service do not differentiate between the downtown station sites.. Because both downtown sites have roughly equal · regional access, patronage by Bakersfield area residents should be roughly the same for intercity travel and even for commuter travel should it prove viable. The Truxtun site being close to governmental offices and the convention center would likely attract more non residents traveling to Bakersfield. While most patrons to the Bakersfield HSR station would be local residents, the Truxmn station site would likely attract slightly more patrons than the Golden State station site. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS E-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Economic and Land Use Benefits -Most of the economic benefits associated with HSR would accrue to the region, with station site location primarily affecting the distribution of growth within the region.. In essence, HSR would increase regional accessibility and thereby stimulate residential and business growth. The location of the station would attract regional commercial growth around the station site and away from less accessible locations. The extent of the distributional influences on growth would be partially determined by the amount of under utilized land around the station area. It is also true that the proximity of new freeways in the Golden State and Truxtun corridors would also influence economic development near the station sites. The proximity of governmental offices and the convention center to the Truxtun site could provide synergy to a HSR station development and provide an undetermined boast to area economic development. The Truxtun site also appears less impacted by planned freeway development. Conversely, the development of an elevated freeway between Golden State Avenue and the UP tracks would leave little attractive area in the corridor for HSR station economic benefits, except north of the tracks. This site influence area would not be perceived as downtown by many residents and visitors. Intermodal Connectivity - Golden Empire Transit could effectively service either downtown site, depending on the details of freeway plans. If Amtrak San Joaquin service remains, the Truxtun site would be the easiest to serve. Both downtown sites would need a linkage to the airport. With the planned new freeways, travel times to the airport would be slightly faster from the Golden State site, but costs would be about the same. Implementation - Construction of HSR is planned in the next 7 to 16 years. Construction of the Centennial Freeway 'is further advanced than the Golden State Freeway and might possibly facilitate coordinated right of way acquisition with HSR in the BNSF/Truxtun corridor. If an off line station is found to be needed at Truxtun and if early funding for CHSRA proves limiting, one HSR development strategy would be to defer the mainline section through Bakersfield and only build the off-line station trackage. All HSR trains would be required to stop at Bakersfield until funding for the mainline track could be obtained. Having all HSR trains stop at Bakersfield would add some travel time to express trains. Recognizing that access is critically important to any public transport system, an off line station in Bakersfield should be considered to be an integral element of the CHSRA base system and therefore should be included in the overall funding for the base system. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF: GOVERNMENTS E-7 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is one year into their EIR/EIS for the HSR system. The EIR/EIS process is not site specific in terms of station locations. In April of 2001 the Kern Transportation Foundation completed a screening and assessment of station sites in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Three station site vicinities (one half mile diameter circular areas) were identified as offering the most promise: site at Truxtun Avenue and S Street/Union Avenue; site at Golden State/M Street; and site at 7th Standard Road West and SR 99. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND PLANNING CONTEXT Kern COG wants to make a recommendation to the CHSRA regarding its locally preferred station site for integration in the HSR system plan. The purpose of this study is therefore to help reach a locally preferred consensus station site to be forwarded to the CHSRA. To accomplish this objective, this Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Impact Analysis Study (the "Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis") will provide a better understanding of potential traffic, air quality, environmental and cost impacts associated with the three station vicinities and build consensus regarding the preferred station site. One critical input to costs and implementation viabi.lity will be the operational implications on HSR service. The locally preferred station site needs to be presented to the CHSRA by April 2003 in order for it to be best reflected in the EIR/EIS. The Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis is not focused on determining the role of Meadows Field within the regional airport system. The Southern California Association of Governments will shortly be embarking on the regional airport system study, including Meadows Fields' role. The Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis is also not intended to identify the best alignment for HSR. It just considers station site issues. Lastly, the Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis does not develop HSR alignment cost estimates, but it rather reports available estimates. The' three most promising station sites for Bakersfield were identified by an analysis of station options by the Kern Transportation Foundation in 2001. Seven sites were evaluated: 1. Comanche Drive/State Route 58; 2. Rosedale Highway/Allen Road; 3. Meadows Field Airport; 4. 7th Standard Road-West of State Route 99; 5. Golden State Avenue/M Street; 6. Truxtun Avenue/S Street; and 7. Truxmn/Union Avenue. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 1 - 1 INTRODUCTION The Kern Transportation Foundation concluded that three site areas offered the greatest promise for a station site and merited further consideration - Airport Area, Golden State/M Street and Truxtun Avenue/S Street. The Kern Transportation Foundation merely identified station site areas using a one mile diameter circle to describe the site area for potential stations. STATION ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY STAKEHOLDERS The following station site-related issues were identified through extensive interviews with stakeholders including the members of the study review team (Kern Council of Governments, City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, Golden Empire Transit and the Downtown Business Association) and participants in a series of meetings or telephone interviews with community/interest groups as follows: Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Smart Growth Coalition · Kern Transportation Foundation Golden Empire Transit Proj eot Clean Air Kern Regional Transit Golden Empire Division of American Institute of Architecture Mobility, Access and Intermodal Connectivity Impacts on existing transportation facilities, infrastructure and operations were deemed critical by all stakeholders. While the local and regional transit providers committed to providing service to whatever site was ultimately chosen, stakeholders recognized that there-were differences with the costs to provide service to the various station sites. This study will provide guidance on these impacts. Existing possibilities for intermodal connections, especially pedestrian access, are highest at the Truxtun Avenue site. Advocates of other sites point out that such connectivity can (relatively easily) be established as part of project design and development for any of the sites. However, although the Truxtun Avenue site wins points from advocates for being central to the downtown area, detractors would claim that this centrality is precisely what creates access problems and complicates the mobility picture. North/south access for transit was mentioned by the service providers as an issue in accessing the two downtown stations. Generally, however, stakeholders recognized that the 16-year HSR'planning horizon was sufficient to provide time to develop adequate transit service to minimize auto trips in and out of tern-final locations. Cost. Cost is impacted by availability of critical infrastructure and/or the Cost of providing utilities to the site. As with the mobility issues that can affect the site variously, those charged with utility infrastructure and service provision are committed to serving any site ultimately chosen; however, they are concerned about the construction and ongoing operations and maintenance BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 1 - 2 INTRODUCTION cost impacts of the decision. Several stakeholders cited site-specific redevelopment requirements and potentials, and the ability to defray costs through revenue sources such as redevelopment tax-increment financing as key in distinguishing sites from each other in a cost comparison. Impacts on property taxes were mentioned as a factor that should be considered. In addition, costs for station amenities or track improvements above and beyond the (minimal) stations included in the CHSRA plan must be paid for locally. To the extent that different station sites may trigger the need for such additional expenditures,' cost factors must be identified prior to decision-making. Stakeholders recognize that these costs depend on CHSRA decisions regarding alignment choice through the Bakersfield area. Convenience for High Speed Rail Users Stakeholders assume that the station site chosen will meet the design criteria established by the California High Speed Rail Authority. Here, again, multimodalism plays a role. Whether or not future passengers (both pass-through and locally originating) would prefer access to downtown amenities and land uses vs. a (minimally) qUicker transfer to Meadows Field air service was a matter of long conjecture and strong contention among the stakeholders. Impact on the Built Environment Related to the overall vision for the future of Metropolitan Bakersfield, are the perceptions regarding' how different sites will be affected by construction of a HSR terminal. Under this topic, the issues of land use compatibility and redevelopment potential pose competing benefits for the Golden State vs. Truxtun site, according to the most ardent stakeholders. That is, the argument for a' northern locus of strong economic activity to replace and redevelop existing lower-value land uses at the Golden State site competes with the notion of "playing to existing strengths" by furthering development at the Truxtun Avenue site, where density and past and future redevelopment plans would seem to be most coherent with a HSR terminal. Cost plays a factor here, because to construct a station environment that adds rather than detracts to the existing built environment will require more funding than to simply provide for basic needs. However, some have pointed out that aesthetic and long-term vision-related design and construction costs will add similar cost factors to any site selected. Potentially long-term project Construction impacts should also be considered, but generally these were felt to be manageable, and perhaps even welcome as evidence of healthy economic activity. Air Quality Air quality concerns stem from the immediate emissions impacts related to travel to and from the terminal site, as well as to long-term growth-inducing impacts of the project. These are deemed to be factual Considerations that must be evaluated based on the outcome of this study, or other impact-specific analyses. Economic Development Stakeholders generally agree that job generation and impacts on the local economy should be investigated, and should play a role in station site choice. Generally, the overall economic benefits of high speed rail access would flow from the project regardless of the station site BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVF. RNMENTS Page 1 - 3 INTRODUCTION selected. Site-specific benefits of economic redevelopment of the Golden State site competed with agglomeration economy advantages and jobs potential for those in low-income residential areas adjacent to the Truxtun Avenue site. However, the separate issue of the maintenance facility was seen as the primary generator of high-quality jobs. Environmental Impacts Noise and vibration were mentioned most frequently as the critical environmental impacts of the station operation; impacts were predicted by most stakeholders to be reater at the Avenue site, due to nearby sensitive receptors, and less severe at the 7thg Truxtun Standard and Golden State sites. However, it was also noted that high speed rail service now runs into the heart of urban/zed areas in Japan and Europe, with no apparent ill consequence. Growth-inducement was a potential for all HSR development. However, costs (financial and urban-form related) of sprawl and impacts to agricultural land were most strongly identified with the 7th Standard site by most stakeholders. A minority of stakeholders pointed to the Centers concept, and the inevitability of development in the area of the 7t" Standard site, thus downplaying such probable impacts associated with that site. Because of surrounding land uses, the Golden State site offers potential advantages of Brownfields redevelopment. STATION SITE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Adopted by the Bakersfield City Council and Kern County Board of Supervisors in September 2002, the following criteria were employed by this Study in evaluating each of the three potential high speed rail terminal sites in Metropolitan Bakersfield for the Metropolitan BakerSfield High. Speed Rail Terminal Impact Analysis: ,'" Station design characteristics (station functions, platform and track way requirements, station amenities, handicapped accessibility, vehicular and pedestrian circulation; fare collection and site design); ,," Right of way needs; v' Operational constraints (noise, lighting, etc,); ,/' Track alignment considerations; ,/ Technology and service requirements; v' Availability of adequate utilities at the site; ,," Site supp°rt Of patronage and revenue (supporting food services and other retail' services); ,," Site geology and engineering; '/ Feasibility of site acquisition (amount of available land and government-held land); BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page I - 4 INTRODUCTION ,/' Ridership profiles and revenue forecasts; v' Physical constraints to station area development (existing topography, canals, buildings, etc.); ,/ Compatibility with adjacent land uses; ,/ Growth considerations (population / development); q' Inter-connectivity with other transportation modes (pedestrians, autos, public transportation, passenger trains and passenger airports); q' Impacts on existing transportation facilities (autos, public transportation, passenger trains and planes); ,/ Consistency with existing plans and policies; ,," Job generation potential; · / Property tax impacts;Potential cost.differential between California High Speed Rail Authority funding and local' community funding and the early identification of funding mechanisms to be used to fund the local share of the project; ,/ Surface street transportation impacts; ~' Redevelopment potential and property tax increments as they relate to redevelopment areas as compared to new development areas; ,/ Availability of FAA funding programs to connect a.high speed rail station to an airport via rail without intermediate stops; and ,/ Use of the Vision 2020 Plan in reviewing urban sprawl implications. These criteria can generally be organized into issues of concern to: · HSR patrons; · Transportation service providers; · The community at-large; and · Implementing agencies. On-going engineering and environmental analysis being performed for the CHSRA will provide significantly more information on costs, Which will be important to Bakersfield's station siting decision. This cost information will be incorporated in this station study as it becomes available. As the focus of the station siting analysis was not envisioned to be a comprehensive economic study, economic assessments were based on previouslyfpublished material. B,~KERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 1 - 5 ~m'ROr) UCT~OU REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is organized into five chapters following this introductory chapter: Chapter 2 - Key Features of the High Speed Rail Plan; Chapter 3 - Seventh Standard Airport Station Site; Chapter 4 - Golden State Station Site; .- Chapter 5 - Truxtun Station Site; and Chapter 6 - Summary. The. appendix to this report describes outreach effort findings with respect to key stakeholders and the community. SUMMARY · Three potential HSR station site vicinities (one-mile diameter circles) previously identified are the focus oft his Study's assessment. * The HSR Terminal Analysis Study evaluates these three station vicinities as to their station siting-difficulties and promise. The Study is not intended to describe final station design concepts or to assess broader regional airport system issues. * Assessment of the station' siting merits is based on input from multiple interest groups. BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF. GOVERNMENTS Page 1 - 6 · Chapter 2 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN Features of the High Speed Rail Plan are of obvious importance to the determination of the best station site in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. Many features of the California High Speed Rail Plan, however, have yet to be defined. The formal description of the Plan is provided in the June 2000 Final Business Plan of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and additional information on the Plan is being developed as part of the ongoing Environmental Impact Study (EIS). This Bakersfield HSR Terminal Analysis is intended to provide input to the EIS in defining the locally preferred station site. It is important to understand that this plan will likely be modified during implementation of the Plan, but also that it will evolve over time after implementation to meet manifesting market demands. Features of the .CHSRA Plan are described in this section of the report in order to provide general background for identifying the best station site in Metropolitan Bakersfield. SYSTEM PLAN Key features of the HSR system plan include: · Service Routes; · Station Stops; · Relationship to San Joaquin Amtrak Service; · Travel Times'; · Fare Schedule; and · Schedule for System Development. ServiCe Routes Three service routes are propOsed by CHSRA. The Bakersfield Station would be served by two of these routes - San Diego to San Francisco and San Diego to Sacramento. The third route would link Sacramento to San Francisco via Merced. The EIS is investigating which of two rail corridors in the Valley (Union Pacific or Burlington Northern Santa Fe) would be the most viable to locate the high speed passenger rail service. It is' also investigating whether it would be best to link Bakersfield to Los Angeles via the Grapevine or via Tehachapi. These alignment issues have important implications for the Bakersfield station decision. Figure 2-1 describes the potential approach/departure paths for HSR trains to/from the north and south. The alignment south along Union Avenue is understood to look the most problematic. According to the CHSRA any of these alignments could'support the three sites being studied for Bakersfield. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 2 - 1 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS  ' Figure 2-1 Wilbuz Smit _... ~'ro~rom TO BE EVALUATED. BAKERSFIELD STATIONS 386110\FJGIJRE 2-1 - 3J26JO,3 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN Station Stops Figure 2-2 describes the three statewide HSR rail lines and the proposed station locations. The nearest stations to Bakersfield would be in Tulare County (Visalia/Hanford) and in Santa Clarita. The only airport stations envisioned along the line are the San Francisco International Airport and the Ontario Airport. Relationship to Amtrak San Joaquin Service The CHSRA Plan assumes that the current San Joaquin Amtrak service will continue and will serve as a feeder to the high speed rail service. Some questions, however, arise about the viability of the San Joaquin service south of Stockton after HSR service has been established. More frequent and faster rail service would be provided by HSR at only a slightly higher fare than that provided by the San Joaquin's service. Depending on the alignment selected for HSR only the Wasco, Corcoran, Hanford and Madera San Joaquin stations would be not be served by HSR. These market areas by themselves might not support continuation of San Joaquin rail service. If the San Joaquin service were to be retained, a seamless connection between it and the HSR service would be required in order to allow the San Joaquin trains to effectively serve as feeders to the HSR. The seamless connection could only be effectively achieved by having both types of service stop at the same station (bus bridge would not work). If San Joaquin service were to be phased out, it would need to be coordinated with the phasing in of HSR service. Travel Times The CHSRA Plan envisions travel times from Bakersfield as shown below: Table 2-1 COMPARISON OF RAIL APPROXIMATE TRAVEL TIMES - BAKERSFIELD STATION Destination Current Amtrak Times Estimated HSR times San Francisco 405 minutes 117 minutes Sacramento 315 minutes 103 minutes Fresno 125 minutes 37 minutes Downtown Los Angeles 140 minutes 50 minutes San Diego 355 minutes 111 minutes Fare Schedule The 2000 Business Plan for CHSRA included proposed fares (1999 dollars) for the purposes of estimating revenues and patronage. Three types of fares were described - full fare, advance purchase and commuter. The commuter fares did not cover service to Bakersfield. Full fares from Bakersfield were as follows: $36 to San Diego, $32 to Ontario AirpOrt, $31 to Downtown Los Angeles, $29 to Fresno, $37 to SFO, $38 to San Francisco and $37 to Sacramento. Advance purchase prices were slightly more than half the full fare prices. It is possible that commuter fares m~ght ultimately be offered for Bakersfield trips, as. the travel times are definitely within' acceptable commute distances. Provision of Bakersfield commute fares would significantly increase station patronage and station parking needs. 386110 . _ BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 2 - 2 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIs Sacramento , Stockton San Francisco~ Modesto SFO Airport Redwood City Merced San Jose Fresno Gilroy Los Banos Tulare County/ Visalia ~ San Francisco - san Diego Bakersfield ~ Sacramento- San Diego · · · · ~. San Francisco - Sacramento Santa Ciarita E. San Gabriel Valley Ontario Airport Los Ant Riverside Uniot Temecula Escondido Mira Mesa San Diego ~s~ Figure 2-2 Wilbu~ Smith ASsociates, STATEWIDE HSR SERVICE PLAN 386110\FIGURE 2-2 - 2/20/03 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN Schedule for System Development The CHSKA Plan proposes a 16 year development period for HSR, with service beginning sometime around 2020. No phasing plan is provided, but it is likely that some parts of the system will come on line before others. Specifically, the ballot funding proposal for HSR builds the San Francisco to Los Angeles route first. This would mean that San Joaquin trains would continue to provide connections to Sacramento from Bakersfield. OPERATIONS PLAN Key features of the operations plan include: ,, Strategy for Shared Use of Track; Express Trains and Local Service; and · Physical Plan. Strategy for Shared Use of Tracks CHSRA has assumed that their trains will operate over exclusive trackage and therefore will not need to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) crash impact standards. At present any rail equipment that shares tracks with conventional freight .or Amtrak trains must meet FRA crash impact standards. The FRA might in the future modify its crash impact standards regarding high speed rail with improvements in traffic management technology..It is even possible that high speed train-sets might be developed in the future that meet FRA crash impact standards. CHSRA's current plan is based on exclusive trackage for its operations. The exception is in the Bay Area and Southern California where hi. gh speed rail may share trackage with Caltrain and Metrolink, respectively. Express Trains and Local Service Five types of service are envisioned bythe CHSRA Plan. 1. Express - stopping at one station between end of line termini 2. Semi-express - stopping at a limited number of stations 3. Local - stopping at every station 4. Suburban Express - stopping frequently within the major metropolitan regions, but running as an express train between major metropolitan areas 5. Regional - local trains that begin or end in the Central Valley (these mostly operate during commute hours) The CHSRA Plan proposes that Bakersfield be served by'Local, Semi-express and Suburban trains on both the San Diego to San Francisco route and the San Diego to Sacramento route. Virtually all southbound trains terminate in San Diego and virtually all northbound U'ains originate in San Diego. One Regional roundtrip train is proposed for both HSR lines serving Bakersfield. The operating plan for trains serving the Bakersfield station is shown below: 3B6110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMEh~¥'~ Page 2 - 3 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN Table 2-2 PROPOSED HSR TRAIN ARRIVALS AT BAKERSFIELD sTATION Northbound' Southbound Arrival Destination Class Arrival Origin Class - 6:08 am San Francisco Local 5:00 am San Francisco Regional 6:58 am San Francisco Suburb 6:00 am Sacramento Regional 7:19 am San Francisco Sern/oX 7:31 am San Francisco Local 7:34 am Sacramento Semi-X 8:17 am Sacramento Suburb 8:13 am Sacramento Local 8:36 am San Francisco Semi-X 8:53 am Sacramento Suburb 8:56 am San Francisco Suburb 9:13 am San Francisco Local 9:05 am Sacramento Local .. 9:42 am San Francisc° Semi-X 9:38 am Sacramento Semi-X 10:08 anu San Francisco Local 9:56 am San Francisco Local 10:24 am Sacramento Semi-X 10:16'am ' San Francisco Semi-X 10:43 am San Francisco Suburb "' 10:56 am San Francisco Suburb 11:08 an~ Sacramento Local 11:13 am Sacramento Semi-X 11:59 am San Francisco Sem/-X 11:31 am San Francisco Local 12:28 pm Sacramento Suburb 11:46 am San Francisco Suburb . 1:18 pm San Francisco Local 12:05 pm Sacramento Local . 1:29 pm San Francisco Sem_i-X 12:16 pm San Francisco Suburb 1:48 pm San Francisco Suburb 12:56 pm San Francisco Semi-X .2:09 pm San Francisco semi-X 1:18 pm Sacramento Suburb 2:28 pm ' Sacramento Suburb 1:51 pm San Francisco Local 2:38 pm San Francisco Suburb 2:06 pm San Francisco Semi-X 3:08 pm San Francisco Local 2:56 pm San Francisco Suburb ... 3:59 pm San Francisco Semi-X 3:'16 pm San Francisco Suburb 4:31 pm Sacramento Local 3:28 pm Sacramento Suburb !. 5:14 pm San Francisco Semi-X 3:46 pm San Francisco Local 5:34 pm Sacramento Semi-X 4:11 pm San Francisco Semi-X 6:23 pm San Francisco Regional 5:21 pm San Francisco . Serni-X 6:34 pm Sacramento Semi-X 6:05 pm Sacramento Local ... 6:48 pm San Francisco Local 6:33 pm Sacramento Semi-X 7:08 pm San Francisco Local 7:08 pm Sacramento Semi-X 7:28 pm Sacramento Regional 7:21 pm San Francisco Local 8:02 pm San Francisco Semi-X 7:46 pm San Francisco Suburb 9:38 pm 'San Francisco Local 8:01 pm San Francisco Semi-X 10:08 pm Sacramento Local 8:51 pm San Francisco Local' ,9:26 pm San Francisco Semi-X 10:55 pm Sacramento Local 11:06 pm San Francisco Local In total, 69 of the 132 daily trains on the San Francisco and Sacramento services would stop at Bakersfield. Four trains would be regional services, 24 would be local services, 24 trains would be Semi-express services and 17 trains would be Suburban services. While this service plan provides a range of options for passengers, it also means that trains would not mn On uniform headways (e.g. hourly). Coordinated schedules 'with GET bus service therefore would be 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ·Pa~ge 2 - 4 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN difficult. All trains stopping at Bakersfield would also stop at the San Francisco Airport and at the Ontario Airport. Physical Plan Elements of the HSR physical plan are being refined as part of the EIS process. Critical features regarding station planning include: track cross sections, station cross sections and transition track. · requirements between the mainline tracks and the station tracks. Figure 2-3 describes the proposed cross section requirements for HSR tracks. A minimum 50 foot cross section is proposed for HSR corridor. When HSR parallels UP or BNSF tracks, a minimum total 100 foot cross section is generally required (50 feet for HSR and 50 feet for freight railroad). Minimum distance between HSR track centerlines is 15.4 feet. The CHSRA concept plans for the Bakersfield Station show at-grade ground level stations for both the Airport site (7th Standard Road) and for the GOlden State Station site. An elevated station concept is proposed for the BNSF Truxtun Station site and a UP underpass level station concept is shown for the UP Union Avenue/Truxtun station site. Cross section fight of way requirements would vary by station site. As envisioned for the EIS, the Airport and the Golden State station site concepts would consist of a four track cross section, with the two mainline tracks serving express trains located in the center. The two outside tracks would serve trains stopping at the Bakersfield station. A 241 foot cross section is envisioned to accommodate the four tracks and passenger platform. Station facilities' would be in addition to this cross section. The BNSF Truxtun station might be either an off-line station (if UP alignment is used for main HSR service) or a combination station if the BNSF is used for HSR service. If this site is used as an off-line station stop, the elevated section would only need to accommodate two tracks and platforms. It is also possible that the Golden State station site could be an off-line station, if the BNSF tracks are used for the mainline HSR service. Station platforms are envisioned to be i,300 feet in length and 30 feet in width each. High speed transitions from the mainline to the station tracks will be required for train deceleration and acceleration. These transition tracks are suggested to be 7,500 feet long extending from each end of the platform. Thus, the total four track station will be three miles in length. Figures. 2-4 and 2-5 show the concepts for station track transitions for mainline stations and for off-line stations. PATRONAGE FORECASTS The numbers of passengers boarding and alighting' at the Bakersfield station are important to programming the' amount of required parking and also for understanding the station access capacity needs.. The principal forecasts for patronage were prepared by Charles River Associates' and published in january 2000. These forecasts were based on pre 9/11 airport security and dotcom era airfares and air service levels. The forecasts also did not Consider potential commuter patronage from Bakersfield. Lastly, the potential patronage associated with . development of Meadows Field into a Satellite airport serving the Los Angeles area was not considered. Information regarding trip purpose and residential location of travelers were not specifically described in the forecast report. Residential location of passengers (Bakersfield versus other station-sheds) is important in sizing station parking requirements. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 2.- 5 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI~ Proposed ROW Proposed ROW I , I I 1.9m-- 2.5m t,~ t.Sm~,_ 4.7m ~..~.~m~ 2.5m ~j ' I * * I Proposed I Figure 2-3 TYPICAL AT-GRADE MAINLINE SECTION Wi]bur Smith Associates, sou.cE: D~U~VHor.. ON NEW ALIGNMENT (CONSTRAINED) - UPRR ALIGNMENT 386110\PASTEUP1 - 2/19/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS I Train Storage Track I ck 3 ~ ~ack4 TrainStorageTmck~  Figure 2-4 ~'~ ~°'~x . 'NTE~EmATE STATION CONFIGU~TION SOURCE Parson Bnnkerhoff Wilbur Smith : . 3861 lO\FIGURE 2-4- 3/5/06 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI~ 2892m 3 Track 4 ~ SAN FRANCISCO SAN DIEGO Track 1 Track 2 Figure 2-5 Wilbur Smith sOURCE: Porto. Bri.ke~ho. INTERMEDIATE STATION "OFF-LINE" CONFIGURATIOn' 3861 lO\FIGURE 2-5- 3/5/03 - THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN The Charles Rivers' Associates patronage forecasts did not attempt to distinguish potential patronage differences associated with different station locations in Bakersfield. The primary market for HSR service is envisioned to be intercity travel rather than commuter or airport access travel. The intercity travel market includes travel by residents of the Bakersfield Region as well as travel by non-residents to attractions in the Bakersfield Region. Most of the Charles Rivers Associates patronage for the Bakersfield station is believed to be attributable to Bakersfield residents. Patronage by local residents for HSR intercity travel would not vary much by station location. Non-resident HSR travel to Bakersfield would likely be greatest to the Tmxtun Station site, which is located conveniently to a number of intercity travel attractions. Neither the Golden State nor airport station sites are within walking distance of any current intercity travel attractions. The two downtown sites would better serve the potential commute market to Los Angeles should it materialize. The airport station site location is farther out of direction of travel to commute destinations, which are predominantly located to the south of Bakersfield. The airport site is the only station site that might effectively' capture Los Angeles Region access travel to Meadows Field. The viability of the Meadows Field becoming a satellite airport to the Los Angeles Region has yet to be determined. As part of the EIS process, the Charles Rivers Associates. forecasts have been refined. The refined forecasts show an estimated 2,674 daily passenger boardings at the Bakersfield station along with an equal number of alightings. The peak hour forecast is for 388 boardings/alightings (7.2 % of total daily) at the Bakersfield Station. With 69 daily trains stopping at the Bakersfield Station, each train on average would serve 39 boarding and 39 alighting passengers. The current daily San Joaquin train departures average about 80 boardings per train, or about twice the average forecasts for each HSR train. Parking and Trafflc The refined forecast estimate that 35% of the passengers would be driving and parking at the station and anther 30% would be dropped off at the station. The remainder would come from transit, taxi or other modes. It was estimated that 1.9 passengers would arrive together and that the average duration of stay would be 1.5 days for the purposes of estimating parking. Application of these estimated relationships to the estimate of boarding passengers yielded an estimate of 739 long term passenger parking spaces (2,674 boardings at 35% parking divided by 1.9 passengers per car and staying 1.5 days) and 8 short term parking spaces. Fees for parking were assumed sufficient to cover'cost of providing it. The EIS analysis indicates a slightly higher parking demand for the Airport station site (850 spaces). The refined forecasts estimate a total of 492 cars arriving during the peak traffic hour. This is roughly equivalent to the traffic that might be generated by 500 single family homes. If a northbound and southbound train both arrived at the same time during the. peak hour, approximately 250 vehicle trips might be generated in a 15 minute period. Station Building The HSR EIS analysis of station building needs suggested a need for an 18,900 Square foot building to process passengers. This space allowance is estimated to be sufficient to accommodate passenger waiting, concourse connection to platforms, passenger ticketing, 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 2 - 6 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN baggage handling, restrooms and support facilities (e.g. food vendors telephones, mechanical and electrical, etc.). This space does not include accommodation for intercity bus passengers nor for rental car counters. The current Amtrak station reportedly is about 12,000 square feet in size. BUSINESS PLAN Many details of the HSR Business Plan need to be worked outl Of key interest to Bakersfield is any cost/revenue ~shafing strategy. The 2000 Business Plan clearly states that station parking facilities will be provided by the private sector, rather than by the Authority. The parking facilities .would be constructed, operated and funded by private operators under agreements with CHSRA. No CHSRA profits are shown-in the Business Plan for parking revenues. The Business Plan also states: "The financial plan shall presume that the state will fund the base system fully and that no local funding participation shall be assumed in the base system. The authority shall consider entering into intergovernmental agreements with local agencies, should local agencies desire or request location, design and other station amenities over and above the design standards of the base system. The costs of location, design and other amenities over and above the base system shall be the responsibility of requesting local agencies." The Business Plan is unclear what constitutes the "base system". Specifically, the Business Plan does not say if the net increase cost associated with off-line stations is or is not included in the base system cost. If the UP line is selected for the HSR approach into Bakersfield from the north, the net increase in costs (including right of way) for an off-line station at Truxtun could be easily calculated. If the BNSF line is selected for the northem approach into Bakersfield, the calculations for off-line stations at the Airport or at Golden State is more difficult to determine, particularly for the airport site. This is because a long new track link would need to be developed connecting the BNSF to the UP corridOr. This new track connection costs might be offset by reduced costs associated with not building some track along the BNSF corridor close in to Bakersfield. Until the HSR ElS report is released defining the "base system" and its .cost (including right of way assumptions), it will not be possible to segregate added local costs related to station location. It is very likely that off-line station costs will not be included in the Base System costs, as the ballot-measure $9.95 billion funding package will be very tightly stretched. At this time the differential cost to provide an off-line station can only be approximated using · very crude order of magnitude cost relationships identified in prior CHSRA planning studies. FigUring the Los Angeles to San Francisco Base System to be about 400 miles of double track at a construction costs of approximately $9 billion ($950 million of funds will be used to Upgrade feeder bus and rail services leaving $9 billion for the HSR Base System), crudelY yields an average cost per double track mile of $22.5 million. Some insight into capital Costs is provided in the Draft High Speed Rail Corridor Evaluation Report - December 30, 1999. A three mile aerial structure through downtown Bakersfield was estimated to cOst $209 million, excluding $55 million for the station. This track development cost translates into $70 million per mile for a double track aerial alignment. At-grade double track segments were reported to cost around $22 million per mile near Bakersfield. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 2 - 7 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PLAN SUMMARY · All three Bakersfield station site candidates reportedly could be served by HSR. · Stations would have 1,300 foot passenger platforms, about 18,900 square feet of building 'area, and 750 parking spaces. Mainline stations would have a 141 foot wide platform area cross section and would have 1.5 mile acceleration/deceleration' transition station tracks on both approach' and departure sides of the station. Off-line stations would not require station area transition tracks and would have a cross section of 80 feet. · A number of very important unknowns remain 'regarding the planned HSR system including: approach and departure corridors for Bakersfield; its potential Bakersfield commuter market; the long term relationship with Amtrak San Joaquin train service; and the inclusion of off-line stations along with their funding responsibility. The on going EIS and preliminary engineering studies, will answer most of these key questions · Costs associated with off-line stations have yet to be publicly defined, but would appear to be in excess of $25 million per mile for double track HSR facilities. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Pag~ 2 - 8 Chapter 3 AIRPORT STATION SITE - SEVENTH STANDARD RD. The primary vision underlying the location of the HSR rail station at 7th Standard Road near the airport is understood to be the development of Meadows Field Airport into a satellite airport serving the Los Angeles Region. In addition to its proximity to the airport, secondary strengths of this site are that it is located in a relatively open area that could cost effectively accommodate the projected parking demands for the HSR station and a location where station development would not require difficult and disruptive land acquisitions. \ STATION LOCATION The Kem Transportation Foundation (KTF) Study identified the potential site for a station at this location to be along the west side of the UP main line railroad tracks, just south of 7th Standard Road. The KTF Study did not identify a specific site, but rather identified a one mile diameter circular area centered at a point one mile west and a quarter mile south of the 7th Standard Road interchange. Trains would approach the station from the north via either the UP corridor or a' new rail connection east to the BNSF corridor (perhaps right of way acquisition coordinated with development of a proposed freeway). The HSR tracks would be at-grade and thus 7th Standard Road would pass over the HSR tracks, the UP freight tracks and SR-99. The Golden State Avenue Frontage Road, which is located between SR-99 and the UP tracks, probably would need to be connected somehow to meet the 7th Standard Road. The on-going HSR EIS identifies the station site to be on the east-side of SR-99, just south of 7th Standard Road. This HSR station would be at-grade with 7th Standard Road passing over it, necessitating reconstruction of the northbound SR-99 freeway ramps. The station site is shown to be just south of the 7th Standard Road overpass adjacent to SR-99. Both of these potential station sites were assessed, understanding that the east side site is now the most favored by CHSRA. West of UP Station Site As outlined in Chapter 2 for the west of UP station site, a 141 foot wide right-of-way would be purchased adjacent to the UP tracks for a four-track station. Right-of-way needs for approaches to the station would reduce to 100 feet. The four-track cross Section would mn from about Snow Road on the south to a point 1.5 miles to the north of 7th Standard Road. The. industrial uses at the SR-99 and 7th Standard Road interchange might be fully or partially displaced by this HSR right-of-way need. . The area west of the UP tracks and south of 7th Standard Road is bounded on the west by the Beardsley Canal and on the south by Snow Road. Snow Road has an at-grade crossing of the UP tracks. It is not clear how Snow Lane would Cross the HSR right-of-way. One possibility would be for it to overpass the HSR and UP tracks and connect with Pegasus Drive east of SR-991 UP also has a short freight siding just north of Snow Lane. The east-west depth of the site is approximately 1,200 feet and the north-south distance between 7th Standard Road and Snow 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 1 AIRPORT STATION SITF Lane is about 6,500 feet. As such ample space would be available for station development and for adjacent development on the 180 acre site. Access to the west of UP HSR station site would be primarily from SR-99 at the 7th Standard Road interchange. Most HSR passengers would be arriving from the south, where almost all of Bakersfield's metropolitan area population and businesses are located. Very little of the Bakersfield HSR market-shed is located north, east or west of the Airport Road station site. The current sR-99 interchange is not built to modern Caltrans standardsl Since the 7th Standard Road overpass of SR-99 probably will need to be rebuilt to span the HSR tracks, it is assumed that the southbound half of the interchange would be upgraded and possibly the northbound half. Traffic approaching the station from the south would exit at the 7th Standard Road ramp and turn · lea onto 7th Standard Road. The interchange intersection would need to be signalized in order to accommodate significantly more left tums from the off ramp. Traffic exiting the HSR station destined south would use a new ramp ont° SR-99. As part of the interchange redesign, the Golden State Frontage Road north of 7th Standard Road would likely be eliminated and the section south of 7th Standard Road possibly cul-de-saced. East of SR-99 Station Site The area- east of SR-99 and south of 7th Standard Road is relatively undeveloped. SR-65, which borders the site area along the east, appears to be access controlled, with no site driveways envisioned. The HSR station envelope for this site would need to accommodate a four-track mainline station, which needs 141 feet of right-of-way depth. A. 1,300 foot passenger platform would be required. Most patrons arriving by car will be arriving from the south on SR-99. Therefore, easy access to SR-99 south is required for this site. The SR-65 access ramps to SR-99 provide an opportunity for high capacity and simple site access, if Caltrans would be willing to permit a station driveway along SR-65. STATION PROGRAM The amount of facilities, types of uses and spatial inter-relationships help to define the planning program for stations. The program for the Airport Station site would very much depend on its viability as an airport access portal. Airport Access HSR Portal Station HSR is proposed to connect with the San Francisco International Airport and to Ontario Airport. The viability of Meadows Field growing into a satellite airport serving Southern California somewhat hinges on the corridor chosen to link Bakersfield to Los Angeles - GrapeVine or Tehachapi. Connection to a possible new airport in Palmdale has been discussed, if the HSR alignment between Bakersfield and Los Angeles is via the Tehachapi rather than by the Grapevine route. If HSR is constructed via the Tehachapi alignment it is very unlikely that ' Meadows Field could be developed into an effective satellite airport for the Los Angeles area. If HSR is constructed via the Grapevine alignment, the viability of Meadows Field as a satellite airport improves. Key questions then become the quality of the connection between the HSR 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 2 ,~RPoR'r s'rA~no~ station and the airport passenger terminal, and also the aviation/environmental capabilities of Meadows Field to grow to meet increased dema~nds. The passenger connection strategy would also need to accommodate passenger baggage. Post 9/11 interlined baggage to/from off airport facilities has become a greater concern. With HSR serving short haul travel markets, the airport would primarily be catering to long distance trips, whose passengers tend to 'have more baggage. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is understood to be embarking on a regional airport system study that would consider Meadows Field as a potential satellite airport for the Los Angeles Region. The viability of Meadows Field as a satellite airport is outside the scope of this station site feasibility study. Potential for development into a Central American gateway airport serving the San Joaquin Valley particularly appears to offer promise. The single runway configuration of Meadows Field would limit its attractiveness as a major hub. The SCAG Study will address this and other issues. The residential development around the airport brings into question the acceptability of greatly increased commercial air traffic from the airport's neighbors. The most recent master plan for Meadows Field dates back to-1987. If Meadows Field can be developed into' a major airport, substantial economic benefits Would accrue to the City and the Region. Location of the HSR station on the west side of the UP tracks would place it more than four miles from the current Meadows Field passenger terminal. It would be about a 10 to 15 minute shuttle bus trip between these two terminals. Since the passenger terminal is on the east side of the airport it would not be easy to directly connect the passenger terminal with the HSR station. In summary, it is doubtful that passengers would perceive the connection to be an easy and seamless transfer, particularly for a HSR station site located west of SR-99. Meadows Field plans currently propose development of a new passenger terminal building north of the present terminal, but still on the east side of the runways. This location would be slightly closer to the airport HSR station, but would not provide nearly the convenient connection that could be afforded by a new passenger terminal located on the west side of the runways. Location of the HSR Station on the east side of SR-99 would place it closer to the MeadOws Field passenger terminal. Recognizing that the passenger terminal would need to be upgraded with jetways to support needs of large aircraft likely to use a satellite regional airport, the question opens to develop the upgraded terminal on the west side of the airport nearer to the HSR station. Successful development of Meadows Field into a satellite airport serving the Los Angeles Region and the use of HSR as the primary means of access, would necessitate greater service capacity (trains) on the segment between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. Review of HSR base patronage forecasts indicate that passenger loads are about equal north and south of Bakersfield. Service capacity is designed based on these balanced loads. If Meadows Field role were increased to serve 10 million annual air passengers, this translates into 27,400 daily passengers. With a 2020 total systemwide forecast for nine million annual passengers using HSR (24,700 daily .passengers), the airport demand clearly could not be accommodated with the base HSR service and would require an overlay of airporter train service. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TEI~u~INAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 3 AIRPORT STATION SITE Parking and Traffic The EIS for the HSR project differentiates between the station sites serving Bakersfield. The program is to provide approximately 850 parking spaces for the Airport station site and 750 spaces for the other two station sites. With few constraints on space, surface parking is indicated. Approximately eight acres of land would be required to park 850 cars. Rental car parking would most likely remain at the Meadows Field Passenger Terminal complex. Should HSR allow Meadows Field to grow into a regional satellite airport, most of the new HSR passengers would be transferring from the train and thus the station parking needs should remain unchanged. Bus Bays The HSR EIS is envisioning one bus loading bay for the Airport station site. Recognizing that the current Amtrak Station has 15 bus bays and Greyhound's terminal has eight bays suggests consideration of providing more than one bus bay. Four bays are proposed for regional feeder bus service - Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, Victorville and Wasco/Corcoran. Two bus loading bays are also suggested for connection shuttles to Meadows Field's passenger terminal. ILLUSTRATIVE STATION CONCEPTS Illustrative station site concept plans were developed for both the West and the East station sites serving the Airport. It should be stressed, that the concepts are not the final site design concepts, but rather merely are intended to show how a station could be developed for these site candidates. The illustrative concept plan for the site located west of the UP tracks is discussed first, followed by the illustrative site concept plan for the site located east of SR-99. Illustrative Site Plan -'West Station Figure 3-2 describes the HSR cross section envisioned by the EIS and Figure 3-3 presents an illustrative vicinity concept plan prepared by WSA. Figure 3-4 provides a more detailed concept for the station development itself. The key challenge in defining an illustrative site plan concept for the Airport Road site is anticipating how the SR-99 interchange will be configured. West Station Access Plan Presently, the Golden State Frontage Road intersects 7th Standard Road in between SR-99 and the UP tracks. Relatively little development along the frontage road depends solely upon the 7th Standard Road connection. The frontage road complicates provision of a high capacity and safety improved southbound interchange access to SR-99. This frontage road connection, however, is certainly desired by the properties along the frontage road. Since 7th Standard Road will need to overpass the HSR tracks, 'is located about 1,000. feet to the west, it makes sense to reconstruct the entire overpass of SR-99. This overpass will eliminate the frontage road connection to 7th Standard Road. As shown in Figure 3-2, the primary access to the station site would be from a new signalized intersection located about 2,300 feet west of SR- 99. The SR-99 southbound ramps would be reconfigured and linked to the extension of the current overpass of SR-99. Its intersection with 7th Standard Road Would be located about midway between the current northbound ramp intersection and the proposed station site access 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 4 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS Exist ~ng ~?x~stlng ROW ROW Pr~sed Pec~strlm EF. xi~;tlng E~dsUng I I I Proposed 7Sm (24&~ j +30.4 m ~aU~ Pr~y tf Ra~road 73.e m (24~ R~ ~ Figure 3-2 ~.~ ~c~;c~ . BAKERSFIELD 4-TRACK AT-GRADE AIRPORT STATION  SOURCE DAAJM/Hams Wilbur Smith : ' UPRR ALIGNMENT 386110\FIGURE 3-2- 3/5/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS UPRR Tracks UPRR Tracks I HSR 4- Tracks HSR 4- Tracks Existing Plaza l' DepOtrI.BuSes Parking Existing Industrial Industrial Depot Road I Development Development Parking Parking station Road -- Potential Commercial  Potential Commercial Potential Commercial Development Development Development Beardsley Road To Snow Lane Potential Commercial / Residential Development Canal o 800  N~ORTH Scale 400 '~~I~,~; ~ Signalized Intersection Wilbur Smith ~ AIRPORT STATION SITE VICINITY MAP , 386110\PASTEUP1 - 5/28/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI;, -- 4 HSR Tracks Depot Bays Building UPRR UPRR Existing ' I~laz~i~;-:' Surface Parking Industrial 4so Spaces Development ~-~ ........ ~ ~--~ ~. Potential ~ ................................. ~ ~ ......... ~ .... ~ ..... Commercial ~ '~-~) ~:" ~~ ~ ~'~-~'~"~-"~ - ~ Development Potential Commercial Development Beardsley Road Potential Commercial / Residential DeveloPment ~O~TH Beardsley ~ Figure 3-4 Wilbur Smith ~ ILLUSTRATIVE AIRPORT STATION SlTr 386110\PAST~UP1 - 5/28/03 AIRPORT STATION SITE road. The uniform spacing of traffic signals approximately 1,400 feet apart would facilitate traffic progression signal timing. The location of the station access road also avoids potential issues with respect to current industrial development. The station entry road would bend towards the station depot in order to simplify access. A second road (referenced as Beardsley Road) would branch away from the station access road to serve potential commercial development sites. This road would link with Snow Lane to the south in order to provide secondary access and emergency vehicle access. West Station Trackside Features The four track cross section is shown in Figure 3-2. Regardless of whether HSR operates in the UP or BNSF tracks in the Valley, the Airport Station would be a four-track facility with express trains using the center two tracks. West Station Stationside Features Th© station side concept plan proposes to locate the station depot building a little to the north of the platform center. This location near the end of the access road is intended to increase its visibility. Buses would be located immediately south of the station building. Three bays of parking would be provided just west of the depot building accommodating 1,000 surface parking spaces. Another 450 surface spaces would be provided south of the station depot building. Commercial development opporUmities would be offered north, south and west of the station complex. Illustrative Site Plan - East Station Figure 3-5 describes how access might be reconfigured to serve a HSR station located on the east. side of SR-99 and Figure 3-6 presents an illustrative concept plan showing how a station could be developed. The 7th Standard Road overcrossing of SR-99 wOuld need to be extended to pass over the HSR tracks. The passenger terminal for Meadows Field would be relocated to the west side of the runway to provide a more "seamless" connection for HSR passengers accessing the airport. As noted previously, substantial upgrades would be required to the tenuinal in order to expand the airport's role in the region and accommodate large commercial aircraft. A linkage system could be constructed to link the remaining 2,000 feet separating the two terminals. This linkage system could be an automated peoplemover as found at many airports, a light rail system or less expensive funicular system horizontal .elevator. Passengers would be able to make the connection in less than two minutes. The new Meadows Field passenger tenrtinal might be constructed between the current US Postal Building and the Bakersfield Californian Newspaper building.' East Station Access Plan Access-to the HSR Station would be primarily from the south on SR-99. The SR-65 interchange would provide direct, simple and convenient access to the HSR station and to the new Meadows Field passenger terminal, as well. Traffic from the north would use the 7th Standard Road interchange and traffic from the east and west would access the HSR station from 7th Standard 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 5 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS HSR Station HSR State Route Tank Potential Potentia C) Hotel Site Link ~ Highwayd Airport Unicorn System x~ Existing Potential ~ Commercial Potential Hotel Site '~velopment Ex. Site Der, Existing Pl°tential Post Development iOffice .... ~ Office Runway O 2000 I Scale lOO0 , NO (~ Signalized Intersection Figure 3-5 Wilbu~ AIRPORT STATION EASTSIDE VICINITY MAP 38~110\?A$¥EU?I - 5/28/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS Depot Building ~--- State Route -99 atform Platform Rental Cars +- Potential Highway --.- Commercial Site Potential Hotel Site Parking Structure, 4- levels 2,000 Spaces Airport Link System ]~ Existing -~-~'~"'"--[~i Development ~-"~'~'"~.~~'"" Potential Commercial Site Potential~ ~~  Development, 0 400 ~ Scale 200 (~ Signalized Intersection ~ Figure 3-6 \~_~V~. a~. ~ ILLUSTRATIVE AIRPORT STATION EASTSIDE SITE Wilbur Smith ~ 386~ 10\PASTEUP1 - 5/~8/03 AIRPORT STATION SIT[ Road. The heavy exit movement from the station onto SR-99 southbound possibly might be designed as a fight-turn only traffic movement. East Station Track$ide Features The HSR station would be a four-track facility with a pedestrian over-crossing connection between platforms. A 141 foot right of way would be required for the station tracks. East Station Stationside Features As shown in Figure 3-6, the station building (depot) would near the southern end of the HSR platform. Bays for feeder buses would be located just to the north, with rental car parking provided north of it. A four level 2,000 space parking garage would be constructed opposite from the depot building. Alternatively some of the land shown for commercial development could be used for less expensive surface parking. It should be noted that air travelers as well as HSR passengers would use this parking and it would be priced accordingly. The market rate for daily parking at Meadows Field is about $5. MARKET PERSPECTIVE Station accessibility, security and ease o~' parking are all important issues for potential HSR riders. ' t Station Access, A station located on the east side of SR-99 accessible from SR-65 would have very good access, whereas a station located on the west side of the UP tracks would be less direct. If direct access from SR-65 cannot be provided to the HSR station, the east side site location would a little less direct. Security. Until commercial development occurs at these sites, they would be rather isolated. Neighboring activity provides passive security for stations and park and ride sites. Passive security is a term used to describe watchful eyes of concerned citizens/businesses around a site. They tend to report suspicious behavior to police and deter problematic loitering. Nearby businesses can also offer safe refuge to worried passengers. When the station area successfully develops, security should become good. Ease of Parking The Airport station site has ample area to provide parking needs for HSR patrons. The projected parking needs could be met with surface parking and should needs far outstrip manifesting demands, some surface spaces could be'intensified into parking structures. The site west of the UP tracks~ offers less attraction to commercial developers than the east of SR-99 site, and therefore parking would most likely be provided' by surface lots. Ample space also exists on the east side of SR-99, however, if the airport connection proves viable more intense utilization of site acreage might prove desirable. Typically, real estate needs to be worth a million dollars per- acre before structured parking becomes economically attractive. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 6 AIRPORT STATION SITE SERVICE PROVIDERS Golden Empire Transit (GET), Amtrak, Greyhound and the freight railroads all have a key interest in the location of the HSR station site. Golden Empire Transit GET currently does not provide public transit service to the area. Route 1 serves the Olive Drive area west of SR-99 and Route 3 serves the airport terminal. Should the HSR station develop on the Airport site or should development extend to the station site area, GET would serve the market. If a new route is not established, extension of Route 3 would prove the most effective, as it is a radial route connecting HSR to the airport and to Downtown. Route 1 is a cross-town bus route. The headways on Ronte 3, however, are only hourly and more frequent service would also need to be provided. The running time for an express shuttle between the current Amtrak Station and the Airport HSR Station is estimated to be 20 minutes. It would take two shuttle buses to operate 20 minute headways on this service, costing about $500,000 annually. Amtrak San Joaquin Service It would not be possible for the Arntrak San Joaquin trains to serve the Airport station site and the current Downtown San Joaquin station site. The San Joaquin trains would likely continue to serve the Downtown station, leaving a gap for those that wish to transfer between train services. If the San Joaquin train service proves not to be viable after HSR service is implemented, this problem becomes moot. Greyhound Interclty Bus Service Proximity to the SR-99 freewa, y ramps would be attractive to Greyhound. Greyhound, however, also seeks to be located in Downtown areas with good pedestrian, transit and taxi services. UP and BNSF Operations Neither railroad is understood to want the HSR service complicating their operations and would rather it be on the other rail operator's corridor. HSR in the UP corridor serving the Airport station site, however, would eliminate two at-grade traffic crossings for UP (7th Standard Road and Snow Lane) if the site were located west of the UP tracks, The site location east of SR-99 would not require grade separation of the UP tracks. GOOD NEIGHBOR PERSPECTIVE It is important for rail stations to fit well into their surroundi.ng neighborhoods. As the Airport Station has few current neighbors, its parking and traffic needs can easily be designed to minimize any potential future problems with neighbors. Best land uses for this station site would be office and hotel. If a commuter market were to prove viable for HSR, multi-family housing Would be a good adjacent station land use. Station Location The 7th Standard Road/West of State Route 99 Station is located west of the Union Pacific tracks and just south of the 7th Standard Road. The station site located east of SR-99 is located within an area being developed into light industrial and office park uses. These two sites are west of the County owned Meadows Field Airport. Additional intermodal connections to and from the 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 7 AIRPORT STATION SITE airport area may be necessary through new transit routes and airport shuttles. Access to Metropolitan Bakersfield from the station site can be provided by State Route 99 or surrounding streets. The area around the station site is either vacant or has plans for redevelopment. New facilities are in the process of initial planning. Compatibility with Land Use ExiSting The AirportJ7th. Standard Station site is part of Kern County's jurisdiction. The current zoning designation for the station site is medium industrial (M-2) with specific conditional Uses that may be subject to special development standards. Just south of the site is designated Exclusively Agricultural which limits the use to primarily agricultural and other activities compatible with agricultural uses. This site is located in a primarily undeveloped area and may need conditional use permits if the station is developed. Proposed The proposed landuse surrounding the AirportJ7th Station site is Service Industrial as described in Metropolitan Bakersfield's 2010 General Plan. There are also areas of Suburban Residential (less than 4 D.U. per net acre) just south of the Beardsley Canal. East of the site is a Public Transportation Corridor which proposes an expansion of Meadows Field Airport. Approximately one mile to the west and southwest of the Station site are planned areas of Rural Residential as well as Intensive Agriculture land uses. Land use opportunities for this station would occur primarily to the northeast where a connection can be made to the airport.. Areas adjacent to the station site can be developed as commercial office uses with supportive residential uses to the south. Redevelopment Potential' The AirportJ7th Standard station Site is located within the County of Kern's jurisdiction and is not included under the City of. Bakersfield's redevelopment areas. The site does share similar land development plans as detailed in the Meadows Field MaSter Plan Update (1987). The Meadows Field Master Plan Update identifies .and recommends the highest and best use of Airport property including expanding future airport development, building new terminals, and implementing new commercial and industrial uses. The updated report notes that future land use and zoning changes should serve as a tool for both reserving specific lands for future development and avoid committing land areas to long-tenu uses inconsistent with the long-range requirements identified on the Master and Land Use Plan. AS Part of the Master Plan, an economic land use study was performed. The study recommends Airport commercial/industrial areas should be competitive by using real estate marketing techniques for an aggressive, organized, and formal promotional program. The study also notes that areas should not be subdivided until prospective tenants are identified in a marketing pmgrarn. New development concepts identified in the study include opportunities in commercial and industrial uses, airline maintenance, corporate hangars and offices, light manufacturing, recreational facilities, and other aviation support functions. The development goals set forth by the, Master Plan Update can supplement and support an adjoining high speed rail station. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ~ Page 3 - 8 AIRPORT STATION SITE Consistency with Existing Plans and Policies This station site is consistent with the Meadows Field Master Plan Update developed for Kern County as well as the Greater Bakersfield's 2020 Vision Plan, City and County General Plans. The airport site would support the long-term plan for airport infrastructure and the community support for a new international gateway. Some of the related strategies described in the various agency plans include: · Support an international gateway with a modem airport to connect Bakersfield to major cities in California through a high-speed rail system. · Create additional revenue sources to increase priority for state and federal transportation funding. · Encourage joint metropolitan transit policies/goal consensus between the City, County and the public. · Provide a long-term plan for airport infrastructure. · Educate communities on topics such as cargo opportunities, international gateways and flight availability. · Encourage large businesses and corporations to invest in Bakersfield's Airport. · Expand telecommunications and other infrastructures to support new and existing industries. · Research and development partnershiP with industry and universities, and · To the extent practical, ensUre that operations conducted at the County airports be compatible with the Community's environment. Traffic and Parking If the HSR station develops as an isolated facility, traffic and parking impacts would not occur. However, if the HSR station develops as an integrated land use parking abuses might occur on adjacent free parking sites. This abuse should be relatively easy to control. Remote parking for the airport at the HSR site could be controlled by charging similar parking fees. Operational Constraints At present there are no "sensitive receptors" like schools, and residential uses near the Airport Station site. Thus, noise and glare impacts associated with HSR and the station would be minimal and would not therefore impose any constraints on the operation of the station or HSR. Indirect noise impacts associated with expanded airport operations, however, could become a problem limiting expanded airport operations. Growth Inducements The Airport 7th Standard site is in a more remote area than the' other alternative stations, but does encourage concentrated uses. The site is located on medium industrial and has potential commercial uses associated with the Meadows Field Airport. Urban sprawl issues may be controlled, if development is restricted through conditional use requirements. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 -9 AIRPORT STATION SITE Job Generation Potential The job potentials at this station site would be associated with the expansion of the Meadows Field Airport. The existing airport is served by two major commuter airlines with departures and arrivals to three of the West Coast's largest hubs including San Francisco, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. A HSR station linked with Meadows Field Airport would encourage future aviation demand and stimulate local employment potentials. HSR and Airline passengers will be attracted by the connection to major cities in California as well as potential international transfers. Having a connecting HSR station and airport would not only promote intra-regional business growth, but it can also create a new employment pool for existing bUSinesses. A report by the Great American .Station Foundation estimated that between 200 and 1,000 new jobs typically are created as a result of establishing a conventional train station. Property Tax Impacts A study of economic impacts relating to conventional rail stations prepared by the Great American Station Foundation Concluded that development of a rail station would lead to an increase in property values of between $15 and $150 million. Obviously establishment of Meadows Field as a major gateway airport 'would significantly increase property values in the vicinity and region. The degree of success as a gateway airport will largely determine the increased level of property values and associated tax revenue increases. DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS PERSPECTIVE Parcels, Ownership and Size The assessorrs parcel number (APN), ownership and parcel sizes for both the West Station and the East Station sites are identified in Table 3-1. The parcels are indicated on the map in Figure 3-7. Displacements If HSR is constructed on the west side of the UP tracks several industrial uses will be displaced. Reconfignration of the Golden State Frontage Road and its connections to 7th StandaYd Road could also disadvantage several property owners. Development of HSR along the east side of SR-99 would displace several businesses and could conflict with the property owners plans for a business park. Development Constraints West of SR-99 development of a station would be influenced by the presence of the Beardsley Canal also overhead electric power utility line. Development of a station on the east side of SR- 99 would be influenced by possible access limitations to SR-65, and the presence of overhead electric utility lines. Funding Funding for the airport improvements (new terminal, etc.) would likely come from Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds or airport revenues. The same is true of the access linkage 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF: GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 10 AIRPORT STATION SITE improvement. The latter might be fundable using air passenger surcharge fees. AIP funds would only cover capital cost, not operating costs. Geology The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps for the City and County of Bakersfield show that the Airport site is not located on an area that is considered a potentially active fault. The entire Bakersfield area is considered seismically active and could experience severe ground shaking and surface readjustment in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake. Implementation of General Plan policies, the Uniform Building Code and Safety Element policies would mitigate potential significant impacts to people and structures to a level of less than significant. '(City of Bakersfield. General Plan Update DE/P,. SCH #1989070302. 2002. PP. 4.6-8-19.) Utilities The area west of SR-99 is presently being developed and has utility services. For the Airport West Site, utility information is as follows: Sewer - no existing sewer capacity, but there is a 30-inch line at the intersection of Snow and Coffee Road. This is the closest connection point to the site. · Gas - existing gas service capacity is approximately 86,000 scfh, with a maximum capacity, of 86,000 scfh. · Electricity- there are two circuits available to provide service to the site. · No details available at present for telephone, water or cable service. For the Airport East Site, at the present details are not available for sewer, gas, electric, telephone, water or cable service. Railroad If the UP corridor is selected for HSR service, the Airport Station site would be along the mainline and no additional station access trackage would need to be provided. If the BNSF corridor were selected for HSR service, it could be connected to the UP corridor just to the north of 7th Standard Road with the same amount of net HSR track as if the UP corridor were selected. A HSR station located at the Airport site would involve little if any extra station access track cost. SUMMARY · Development of a HSR station at the airport site is envisioned to facilitate Meadows Field becoming an international gateway airport. · The airport HSR station would be a four track mainline station. · HSR stations might possibly be developed on either side of SR-99. Location of the station on the east side would offer greater promise for seamless connection to Meadows Field. · Many unknowns are associated with the viability of Meadows Field becoming a more active airport including the Southern Calif0mia Association of Governments regional 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 11 AIRPORT STATION SITE airport plans relating to Meadows Field and to Palmdale. If HSR is constructed on the Tehachapi route it would pass by Palmdale on its way to Bakersfield. · Expansion of HSR's role to include primary access to a significantly sized satellite airport would necessitate more service capacity (trains) on the segment between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 12 AIRPORT STATION SITE Table 3-1 AIRPORT SITE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER, OWNERSHIP, VALUE West Station Site Area APN . (Sq. Ft.) Perimeter (Ft.) Name Asse. Address Land Val Impr Val Net Val 492030003 4210523.03 11236.92 BIDART BROS 34741 7TN STANDARD RD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-9435 $167,500.00 $16,510.00 $184,000.00 BIDART JOHN A 492030004 796726.88 3980.50 TRUSTEE 34741 7TH STANDARD RD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-9435 $ 63,100.00 $425,800.00 $488,900.00 492040001 537960.91 3364.51 BIDART BROS 34741 7TH STANDARD RD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-9435 $264,200.00 $158,500.00 $422,600.00 PACIFIC GAS & 492040003 195133.18 1768.98 ELECTRIC CO P O BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 $ $ _ $ 492040004 4652101.16 8816.46 BIDART BROS 34741 7TH STANDARD RD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-9435 $203,300.00 $214,200.00 · $417,500.00 492070008 241623.90 2302.59 BIDART BROS 34741 7TH STANDARD RD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-9435 $302,600.00 $205,000.00 $507,600.00 492030003 4210523.03 11236.92 BIDART BROS 34741 7TH STANDARD RD BAKERSFIELD CA 93312-9435 $167,500.00 $ 16,510.00 $184,000.00 East Station Site Area APN (Sq. Ft.) Perimeter (FL) Name Asse. Address Land Val Impr Val Net Val 0 191300 2888 0.00 0.00 0.00 482130006 99255 1275 K R M FINANCIAL 17011 BEACH BL STE 520HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92647 3757.00 0.O0 3757.00 CORP ' 482140001 283552 2155 K R M FINANCIAL 17011 BEACH BL STE 520HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92647 10460.00 0.00 10460.00 CORP 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 - 13 Chapter 4 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE The HSR Station site for this station vicinity was defined by the Kern Transportation Foundation to be along Golden State Avenue near M Street. The vicinity area defined for this station extended roughly from H Street to Q. Street. The overall area along Golden State Avenue between the Kern Canal and Q Street is currently fully developed and has few major destinations for HSR passengers. Plans have been discussed to construct a new elevated freeway parallel to Golden State Avenue between the railroad tracks and Golden State Avenue. While details of the freeway 'project have yet to be defined, the project will likely affect access and impact site development opportunities. Road crossings of the UP mainline tracks in this area are located at Chester Avenue (underpass), at 30th Street (at-grade) and at Q Street (at-grade). The HSR tracks would be located on the south side of the LIP tracks. STATI O N LOCATION A site located south of the UP tracks between the Kern Canal and Chester Street has been subsequently identified by the HSR EIS as the most promising. As part of this station planning effort for Kern COG, WSA reviewed the EIS suggestion regarding the best site location for the Golden State Avenue Corridor. We concur with the EIS finding that the most promising station site in the vicinity of M Street is the location identified by the EIS (Figure 4-1). Further definition of plans for the new freeway, however, might suggest another site for station development in the Golden State Avenue Corridor. Transportation factors critical to the location of this station include: · Railroad fight of way needs, · Developable site depth for station, and · Site access issues. HSR Right of Way Envelope This station most likely would be located along the mainline HSR service and thus would be a four track station (two mainline tracks and two station tracks). The cross section for the HSR corridor would require acquisition of 100 feet of right of way through this area (141 feet near the station itself to include platfom~s) in order to provide the four HSR tracks, if UP would not share its current right of way. If the station were located adjacent to the Canal, the required three mile deceleration/acceleration tracks would run from just south of Olive Drive to just west of Union Avenue. If the station were located between M and Q Streets, the four track cross section would run between just north of the Canal to just west of Haley Street. The simplest segment to add four tracks would appear to be the northern station site vicinity nearest to the Kern Canal. This is the locatiOn identified by the HSR EIS. If the mainline HSR service uses the BNSF corridor, an off-line station could be developed on this site, requiring only about half the HSR fight of way needed for the four track station. Off- line trains would transition over to the UP tracks along the track cormection corridor existing west of town. It is also possible that the HSR corridor transition from BNSF to UP corridor 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 1 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI~, Figure 4-1 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE could occur north of 7th Standard Road, and a four track mainline station would be required at the Golden State station site. Development Site Depth The northern site vicinity has the greatest width for station development (600 feet) between Golden State Avenue and the UP tracks. East of Chester Avenue the right of way between Golden State Avenue and UP tracks narrows to about 450 feet. As noted above, 141 feet of the right of way between the UP tracks and Golden State Avenue would be consumed by the HSR tight of way needs. The UP might be willing to share some of its right of way, but HSR would need more than half the UP right of way. For planning purposes a worse case right of way scenario was employed with the HSR needing to provide for its full cross section right of way needs. Site Access Access to a station at the EIS station location is less than desired. The F Street intersection to Golden State Avenue provides only limited capacity. Garces Circle at Chester Avenue also appears to have limited reserve capacity for station access. Access to a station site located on or south of M Street, however, also would be difficult due to the Niles Street high speed entry on to Golden State Avenue. With construction of the proposed freeway, any site south of the UP tracks would be under the freeway and would need to be integrated with access ramps for the freeway. These issues' all suggest that the best site for a station for this vicinity would be to locate it near the Kern Canal as identified by the EIS. Location of a station on this site would require the relocation of the Pensinger's RV, Restoration Village and other current uses. It might be possible to retain the GET bus facility by shifting bus parking north of the current GET site. The four track right of way requirements for this station vicinity probably would take all the other properties even if the station were located closer to M Street. A station located at the northern end of F Street has promise to economically strengthen the F Street corridor between Golden State Avenue and Truxtun Avenue. Other Sites Considered Two other sites were reviewed and found to be less promising than the F Street site. One option had the station centered on Chester Street, while the second option had the station site centered on M Street. The Chester Street site option would have concentrated too much traffic immediately in front of the depot building. The development depth between the UP and Golden State Avenue is about 500 feet. With HSR requiting 141 feet for its four tracks and platforms and about 350 feet needed for transitioning vertical grades in order to pass Chester Street beneath the railroad tracks, scant space remained for the station and its circulation. The Downtown Business Association is understood to favor a station at M Street. The M Street site proves problematic due to the limited site depth, and the high speed Niles on ramp. M Street itself would need to be truncated at the railroad in order to avoid costly grade separation. The site development depth at M Street is only about 450 feet between Golden State Avenue and the 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 2 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE UP. The HSR tracks and platforms would consume 141 feet with the station building (including curb loading sidewalk) consuming another .100 feet. This leaves only 200 feet for circulation roadways and station driveway approach throat to Golden State Avenue. A station area loading road typically is 32 feet wide, its U-turn inside turn diameter 75 feet, the exit roadway 24 feet wide and the exit driveway throat another 75 feet. These dimensions totals 206 feet, indicating that a station could probably be forced to fit on the site. It is also possible that the Niles Street high speed ramp could be signalized and the station access could then be developed off of M Street. M Street, howeVer, is not a major transportation spine for the downtown and thus locating the station at the northern end of M Street would not be as accessible as at Chester or Q Street locations. While the HSR tracks are planned to be located on the south side of the UP, it might be possible to locate the HSR station on the north side of UP. This approach would require all passengers to change elevations to cross over/under the UP tracks to reach the HSR platforms. STATION PROGRAM The definition of a viable site plan for this station site begins with determination of how many parking spaces will be required, the number of bus bays, the depot building size and overall circulation pattern. Parking The EIS suggests that 747 parking spaces should be provided to serve the forecasted 2,674 daily boardings. Without more detailed information on the development of this estimate it would seem to be a valid planning number. If a market were to develop for commuter travel from Bakersfield, the parking needs could be substantially higher, depending on the pricing for parking. Parking costs tend to be considered more important by commuter patrons than by occasional patrons. For planning purposes 800 to 1,000 spaces are proposed for this station site. If rental cars are accommodated on-site an additional 200 spaces are suggested for their needs. As the CHSRA Business Plan states that provision of parking and any associated revenues would be local responsibilities, provision of more than the base estimate would not increase cost to local jurisdictions. Bus Bays The present Amtrak Station currently has 15 bus bays for loading passengers. These include buses to LA and San Diego that would not be required with initiation of HSR service. For planning purposes bays for four intercity feeder buses are suggested, along with six shuttle bus bays, and perhaps as many as eight Greyhound bus bays. The need for the latter should be confirmed in later planning efforts. The Business Plan appears to provide for only one bus bay and thus, provision of more than one bay might add to local station costs. Station Access Analysis of the EIS patronage forecasts show: 1. Only 15% of its patrons are' estimated to arrive by bus and another 10 % by shuttle. This would seem to be a low percentage for bus arrival as the new HSR station would be served by buses to Santa Barbara, Las Vegas and Victorville and possibly 386110 · BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 3 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE Wasco/Corcoran. Shuttle bus connections to CSUB, Truxtun Avenue government offices, key off-site park and ride sites, and hotels seems inevitable. 2. 10% use of taxis, which seems high. 3. 388 of the daily 5,348 station daily boardings and alightings (7.2%) Would occur during the peak hour of station activity. Again the EIS estimates do not assume significant amount of commute use of HSR services. 4. Peak hour traffic generation of 492 vehicle trips arriving at the station. Applying the EIS estimates of mode of access profiles to the 388 peak hour passenger trips yields a much lower traffic generation number- 155 arriving vehicle trips. The EIS figure of about 500 peak hour arriving trips is suggested as a conservative planning number. Access to the station is proposed from the Golden State Avenue F Street signalized intersection. With displacement of other uses by the HSR station, current traffic related to' GET, Renovation Village and other uses would be eliminated and the EIS projected 500 peak hour vehicle trips related to the station should become viable for this intersection with minor operational changes. While the average number of passenger boardings for HSR trains at Bakersfield will be about half the current San Joaquin train average, a much higher percent of the HSR patrons will be local (not arriving by feeder buses). As such, the traffic generated by a HSR train arrival will be higher than for current San Joaquin trains. There is also a greater possibility that two trains will arrive at the 'same time, due to the more frequent schedule of trains. ILLUSTP. A, TIVE SITE CONCEPT Figure 4-2 describes the station cross section envisioned by the HSR EIS and Figure 4-3 presents an illustrative concept plan prepared by WSA for the site. It should be stressed that this site concept plan is merely intended to show how the site might be developed for a station and the concept is not intended to describe the final site plan. Further discussion is indicated to determine the best station site location along the Golden State Corridor, particularly considering coordinating the station siting with the planning for the new freeway. Trackslde Features The HSR station profile shows the HSR four track station is to be located immediately along the south side of the UP right of way. The HSR cross section includes a 9.8 foot buffer area between rail rights of way, a 29.5 foot wide HSR northbound platform, 62.8 envelop for the four tracks, a 29.5 foot southbound'HSR platform and a 9.8 foot buffer area connecting to the station building. The total width for the 1,300 foot platforms and track area would be 241 feet. The station building would be in addition to this platform area cross section. If HSR main line service operates on the BNSF corridor, only the station tracks might be required at the Golden State site. The site concept that is shown in Figure 4-3 would function as an off-line station as well as for a mainline station, with the exception being a slightly narrower HSR right of way. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 4 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI,C;  ~. Figure 4-2 4-TRACK AT-GRADE STATION - GOLDEN GATE STATION Wilbur Smith Associates, sou.ce: DMJM/Horris UPRR ALIGNMENT 3861 lO\FIGURE 4-2- 3/5/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS Metro Recreation Ice House Depot Center '~ Building ~', [-" /'~'/'"~ ....... 'x' '~'"'"-~' ~~ ~ati~" ~ i Parking Structure (3 floors) [~ ~ FeederBusos ~.~'.-~ ~J'~Pla~:,'../ I .00 Spaces Total I~ ~) ~~. ShortTermParkina _ ~ h~.n ... ~ Golden State Avenue / Goide~ State 0 400 Scale 200  Figure 4-3 Smith ~ 38e~ IO\PASTEUP1 - 5/28/0-1 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE Stationside Features The illustrative station concept for this site utilizes the area south of the GET facility for the station. The right of way "take" adjacent to the GET facility would be about 130 feet and would necessitate relocation of some bus parking to the area between the current facility and the Canal. The platform would extend from a point just south of the GET site 1,300 feet to approximately where H Street intercepts the UP right of way. The station building (depot) would be located approximately 600 feet south of the GET site, slightly off the midpoint of the platforms. A two bay parking garage would be developed on the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to the platform. The garage would be three levels high and would accommodate 900 cars. A pedestrian bridge could connect over to the Ice House development and to 34th Street. Buses would enter the site and circulate counterclockwise past the depot and parkers would be segregated towards the south side of the site. The area between the depot and the Golden State Frontage Road access driveway to GET could be left open for a public park. This would enhance the station's visibility. The area between the parking garage and Golden State Avenue would be open to hotel or other commercial development. This commercial site would be buffered from the HSR noise by the parking garage. MARKET PERSPECTIVE Station accessibility, security, and ease of parking are all important issues fOr potential HSR riders. Station Access As mentioned above, access to the station would probably be limited to the F Street intersection at Golden State Avenue. Most Bakersfield area residents would approach the station from Golden State Avenue. Traffic from the SR-99 South Corridor would not have very direct access to the station at this site, nor would traffic from SR-58 Corridor. Access from the north would be precluded by the Metro Recreation Area Park and by the Canal. Pedestrian access would also depend on access via this intersection. Walking distance (1.1 miles) to government offices located on Truxtun Avenue would not be considered reasonable by most pedestrians. A simple shuttle operating along F Street, however, could prove effective. The HSR EIS projects a peak hour peak direction volume of about 500 vehicles per hour (vph) to be generated by the station. If the distribution were 40 percent to/from the northeast, 50 percent from the southwest and ten percent from F Street, this would translate into 200 left turns into the site from the northeast, 250 right turns into the site from the south west and 50 inboUnd cars coming straight across Golden State Avenue on F Street. The inbound left mm movement and the outbound left turn movement at F Street would become critical capacity movements, even netting out the current traffic being generated by uses on the station parcels. One potential access enhancement strategy would be to delete the F Street to Golden State Avenue eastbound on ramp and route left turn inbound traffic into the station via an indirect left turn via right turn onto Eye Street, then right turn onto 30th Street and right mm onto F Street. Left tums from both directions off of Golden State Avenue onto F/II Streets would be prohibited. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 5 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE Security The sifigle entry/exit into the station site might facilitate enhanced security for the station area and its parking facilities. Parking Accommodation Depending on the extent of the property acquisition it would be possible to provide the projected 800 to 1,000 parking spaces at-grade in a surface lot. Approximately, 320,000 to 400,000 square feet would be required for this surface parking. The site provides more than 700,000 square feet of development area, even without displacement of the GET facility. A three story parking garage is proposed for this site, rather than surface parking in order to maximize joint site development and economic benefits. Bottomline is that patrons should be able to find ample parking at a station developed on this site. It should be noted that parking fees would not provide as much profit for structured parking as it Would for surface parking. SERVICE PROVIDERS PERSPECTIVE Golden Empire Transit, Amtrak and Greyhound are the major service providers in the region. The LIP and BNSF positions would also be very important. Golden Empire Transit Service The adjacency of the Golden Empire Transit (GET) administrative/maintenance/storage facility to the station site would indicate that GET could conveniently service a HSR station at this site. Only GET's Route 12 currently serves the site. Route 12 functions as a shuttle connecting the station site area with GET's Downtown Transit Center, Greyhound's Terminal and then operates out to the Veteran's Clinic via 21st and 24th Streets. It operates on 30 minute headways Monday through Saturday. A shuttle connection to Meadows Field would cost approximately $500,000 annually to provide. Amtrak San Joaquin Service Amtrak operates the State sponsored passenger rail service (San Joaquin) and its associated system of feeder buses. Six roundtrips daily are provided to/from Bakersfield's station at Truxtun and S Street. Trains serve the station from BNSF's tracks passing through its busy freight yard. Approximately 1,000 daily passengers board and alight at Bakersfield (500 of each). An estimated 75% are connecting to Amtrak feeder buses, with the remaining 25% having an origin or destination in Bakersfield. Scenarios for Amtrak include: running a "bus bridge" between the new HSR station and its Tmxtun Station; rerouting trains via the track connection east of town to the Golden State HSR station on UP's mainline tracks or discontinuing service to Bakersfield - ceding the market to HSR. It is very unlikely the bus bridge would be successful. Those passengers traveling from Wasco and Corcoran, probably would prefer to board a bus in those communities rather than ride a train to board a bus. Rerouting trains onto the UP tracks would be physically feasible, but would require permission to use the UP tracks and the development of platfonus and train storage tailtracks. Additional right of way would be required to provide these new Amtrak rail station facilities. Most likely Amtrak's San Joaquin service would atrophy and ultimately be discontinued. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 6 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE Greyhound Intercity Bus Service The Greyhound Bus Line terminal is located on 18th between F Street and H Street. If a low cost terminal facility were offered to them at the HSR station site, they might be willing to relocate. Otherwise the current terminal is more centrally located and they would likely stay. The Business Plan for HSR does not provide funding to incorporate Greyhound into the new station. It only provides for a base level station. Greyhound serves many of the same destinations as HSR, but at lower fare and therefore would not compete directly with HSR. UP and BNSF Operations Both the UP and BNSF view their facilities as business assets. Their core business is hauling freight and they tolerate passenger rail service only to the 'extent that it will not detract from their freight rail operations. Where public monies can be obtained to improve their freight operations, the railroads are very interested. In addition to freight operations, these railroads also tend to seek safety improvements. At-grade traffic crossings of their tracks are a major problem and the railroads want to grade separate or close as many as possible. With respect to the Golden State HSR station site, the railroads will want elimination 'of the 30th Street/M Street crossing and also the Q Street at-grade crossing as part of the HSR grade separations. GOOD NEIGHBOR PERSPECTIVE A HSR station at the Golden State location coUld be developed with minimal adverse traffic and parking impacts on neighboring properties. Office, hotel and perhaps multi-family housing would be good adjacent land uses. Single family residences generally are not good land uses near stations, and multi-family housing is most successful when it is located away from the tracks. Station Location The Golden State Avenue site is designated in an M-1 Light Manufacturing Zone. It is south of the Metro Recreation Center and includes the Kern County Museum, Pioneer Village, and Sam Lynn Ballpark. It is also just south of the Kern Canal and south of the Union pacific tracks. It has good access to Metropolitan Bakersfield and is in close proximity to the urban core. This site is also adjacent to the existing headquarters of GET with public assistance housing further south along Golden State Avenue. Compatibility with Land Use Existing The City of Bakersfield land use plan shows the proposed Golden State Ave Station is located in a Light Manufacturing Zone (M-l). Just north of the station site is a large recreation area that includes the Metro Recreation Center and historic baseball 'fields. There are small areas zoned for commercial uses further east of the park. This area is currently used for office space. To the south and east are areas of General Manufacturing that parallels the SR 99 and the Union Pacific line. Commercial uses are immediately south of the station site with retail stores such as Smart & Final and Dollar Tree as well as office spaces. Just southwest of the station site is zoned for Limited Multiple Family Dwelling with Single Unit Family Dwelling to the west. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 7 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE Proposed The City's General 2010 Plan does not show any significant land use changes near the station site. The plan does indicate one change to the light industrial area just east of the Metro Recreation Center to General Commercial uses. ', Redevelopment Potenlial I The Golden State Avenue station site is within the Old Town Kern Redevelopment area. This :1 area has recently received a Sustainable Communities Grant which will include demographic and marketing assessment and analysis, a community visioning charette, as well as developing a strategic action plan. The City anticipates that this approach will set a good framework for revitalization, renewed community interest and sustainable development in this historic area of Bakersfield. The Old Town Kern Redevelopment area has some large vacant spaces such as the Montgomery Wards building at Golden State and F Street. It is made up of a variety of small businesses. To the north of this building are a recently opened Smart & Final and a Dollar Tree. Directly to the east is a three-story office building that serves various office users and north of this building is the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). North of existing Union Pacific line is the Metro Recreation Center. This center is adjacent to the Kern River and includes a County Museum and children's museum. There is an existing campaign to develop a cultural museum master plan that will incorporate the museums, a new performing arts center and Metro Park. Consistency with Existing Plans and Policies The Golden State Ave Station has similar land use characteristics as the Downtown station alternative and therefore has the same consistencies with existing plans and policies. Although commercial and residential densities are not as concentrated as the Downtown station alternative, this station site is within a key trm~sportation corridor between the existing Union Pacific line and State Highway 204. This station site would support the following strategies: · Encourage completion of Route 58; · Recognize the link between land use and transportation; · Provide for more compact developments, less sprawl and higher density developments; · Develop incentives for higher density development around transportation areas; · Develop a cultural/museum master plan incorporating museums, new performing arts center, and Metro Park; · Attract new types of businesses consistent with the 2020 Vision Plan; · Attract investment capital in particular sectors; and · Build on existing economic base. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 8 GOLDEN STATE STATION Traffic and Parking Charging for parking at the station will encourage parkers to fred free nearby parking. The Golden State site is relatively contained and abuse of adjacent free parking resources should be minimal and easily managed. Similarly, station traffic would not adversely impact residential areas, as the station site is isolated form residential areas. Operational Constraints Noise and glare associated with HSR and the station itself should not pose any problems for properties located on the north side of the UP tracks. The UP freight operations'akeady impact. these properties and HSR impacts would be masked by the UP impacts. Similarly, properties located south of Golden State Avenue would not be substantially impacted by HSR, as the traffic noise from Golden Gate Avenue would mask HSR impacts. Restoration Village and the nearby motel are the only "sensitive receptors" located near HSR that Would be adversely impacted if they remained at their present locations. Growth IndUcements The Golden State 'Station also has high potential to encourage infill development. With the Metropolitan Bakersfield central business district just south of the station site, this is a promising area for concentrated residential and commercial uses. The station site also has natural boundaries and existing infrastructures that prevent new development from impeding onto exclusive agricultural land. Growth inducing impacts would not be as significant as those associated with the Airport Station Site. Job Generation Potential The job potentials at this station site would be similar to the Downtown station alternative. A high speed rail. station can promote private sector jobs for Metropolitan Bakersfield :by connecting affordable commercial redevelopment and new development.opportunities to large companies. The HSR network Promotes intra-regional business growth and provides new and equitable opportunities for existing communities. Most of the economic development and job stimulus impacts would be oriented towards the south, because the UP tracks and the Park are located to the north. The extent of the beneficial impacts will be determined by the HSR patronage and by the details of plans to upgrade Golden State Avenue into a freeway/expressway facility. Most of the beneficial impacts would accrue to the area closest to the station, but benefits could extend southward along both Chester and F Street into central Bakersfield. Property Tax Impacts A 1995 study of the economic impacts associated with a'Truxtun station site for HSR concluded that within the following 20 years of construction that about $23.5 to $27.4 million of new development linked'to HSR would occur. Adjusting for inflation this added value would amount to $35 million in 2003 dollars. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 9 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS Figure 4-4 PARCELMAP - GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE GOLDEN STATE STATION sITr DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS PERSPECTIVE Parcels, Ownership and Size The assessor's parcel number (APN), ownership and parcel sizes are identified in Table 4-1. The parcels are show on the map on Figure 4-4. Displacements Acquisition of the parcels identified on Figure 4-4 would require displacement of private and public owned business. Discussions regarding relocation would be required. Displacement related to Restoration Village would be the most difficult. It should be noted, however, that Restoration Village is not likely a compatible use adjacent to HSR and might need to be relocated regardless of station site selection. If the HSR station were located closer to M Street on the north side of the rail tracks significant good neighbor conflicts (traffic and parldng) would occur with the established residential area. Development of the Golden State Freeway through this corridor would likely require similar displacements. Development Constraints The station site is constrained by a number of development barriers. These include: the UP main line tracks and the adjacent Metro Center Recreation public park; the Kern Canal, Golden State Avenue/Freeway; and the important Chester Avenue railroad Underpass. The proposed elevated Golden State Freeway would also need to be coordinated with the HSR station. Geology The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake FaUlt Zoning Maps for the City and County of Bakersfield show that the Golden State Station site is not located on an area that is considered a potentially active fault. The entire Bakersfield area is considered seismically active and could experience severe ground shaking and surface readjustment in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake. Implementation of General Plan policies, the Uniform Building Code and Safety Element policies would mitigate potential significant impacts to people and structures to a level of less than significant. (City of Bakersfields. General Plan Update DEIR SCH #1989070302. 2002. PP. 4.6-8 - 19.). Utilities The site is presently developed and is served by utilities. Utility information is as follows: · Sewer - several 12-inch lines throughout the various parcels. · Electricity - one circuit is available to provide service to the site. · .No details available at present for telephone, gas, water or cable service. Railroad If the UP corridor is selected for HSR service, the Golden State station Site would be along the HSR main line and no access trackage would need to be constructed, other than .the station sidings. However, if the BNSF corridor is selected for HSR main line service, an off-line access connection would need to be constructed. Rather than the two three-mile mainline station sidings needed for the UP corridor (total of six track miles), approximately 20 track miles of off- line track would need to be provided for the BNSF corridor HSR service. Thus, approximately 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 10 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE 14 additional track-miles of HSR tracks would need to be constructed if the Golden State station site were an off-line station for BNSF HSR main line service. At an order of magnitude cost. of $25 million per double track mile, this would amount to $175 million. This crude cost estimate will be detailed as part of on going engineering studies and subsequent policy decisions will determine if any local participation in the funding for off-line stations will be required. Raikoad grade separations would need to be constructed at 30th Street and also at Q Street. Operations for either a four track HSR or a two track HSR. The UP will almost certainly want its tracks grade separated along with the HSR tracks. SUMMARY · Development of a HSR station appears physically possible at the Golden State station site and would need to be coordinated with the planning of the proposed freeway. · A HSR station at this site most likely would be a four track at-grade mainline station. · It might be possible for HSR to share some UP right of way, but not enough to provide fully for its cross section needs · A significant amount of displacement and relocation efforts would be associated with a station developed at this location. · Station access and potential station related economic benefits to surrounding area would be critically influenced by details of the freeway for the Golden Gate Avenue corridor. · A HSR station at this location would have the potential to significantly revitalize the surrounding area depending of plans 'for the elevated freeway. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 - 11 GOLDEN STATE STATION SITE Table 4-1 GOLDEN STATE AND "M" SITE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER, OWNERSHIP, VALUE Area Perimeter APN (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) . Name Asse. Address Land Vel Impr Vel Net Vel 1020001 70665.42 1313.40 $ $ $ _ 1020002 11460.67 498.76 $ $ $ 1020004 25046.07 685.79 $ $ $ 1020011 205264.67 2267.55 $ $ _ $ 1020012' 44557.08 982.53 $ $ ~ $ 1020013 27122.62 796.t3 $ $ _ $ 1020014 .172721.91 2070.38 $ $ $ 1020015 73291.84 1400.69 $ $ $ 1020016 5975.38 345.04 $ $ $ 1020017 46694.60 1042.79 $ $ $ 2300001 76502.59 1307.97 $ $ $ _ 2300002 12850.08 506.19 $ _ $ $ 2310003 6269.61 347.19 · ...... $ -_ $ $~ 2310005 7831.73 402.26 $ $ $ 2310009 14793.16 579.21 $ $ $ 2310011 15430.11 496.88 $ $ . $ 2310012 26786.55 682.51 $ $ $ 2310013 18964.04 547.69 $ $ $ 2310014 12155.47 443.35 $ $ $ 2310017 9449.85 383.39 $ $ $ ANTELOPE VALLEY 332210003 128153.72 1617.51 BUS INC 660WESTAVENUE L LANCASTER CA 93534 $ 410,000.00 $ 226,400.00 $ 636,500.00' 332210019 109476.29 1547.85 MONACO FAMILY TR 3901 ore VISTA BAKERSFIELD CA 93309 $ 47,860.00 $ 208,700.00 $ 256,500.00 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 4 -12 Chapter 5 TRUXTUN STATION SITE The Truxtun station site was defined by the Kern Transportation Foundation to be located within a half-mile of the current Amtrak station (from just east of Union Avenue to Chester Avenue on the BNSF corridor). The CHsRA EIS has subsequently identified a site between S Street and Sonora Street as the most promising station site (Figure 5-1). The EIS also mentions a possible north-south station orientation for a potential HSR alignment nmning along Union Avenue. This north-south Union Avenue alignment is not perceived to be very attractive. The railroad right of way narrows to only 84 feet through the Truxtun station site vicinity and crosses Union Avenue on a double track over-crossing.. BNSF has its large freight yard located west of the station site between F S/feet and the Kern River. Only two at-grade crossings of the BNSF railroad are located between the Kern River and Union Avenue - at N Street and L Street. East of Union Avenue there are numerous at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks. The Truxtun station site is located within walking distance of two hotels, the convention center and many government office buildings. The area south of the railroad tracks presents an opportunity for new downtown oriented development. An elevated freeway is planned for the BNSF corridor through Downtown. STATION LOCATION The factors that have the strongest influence on the location for a HSR station for this area include: · Selected Valley corridor for HSR (UP or BNSF); · Development of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway; · Post HSR operations of the Amtrak San Joaquin service; and · Availability of property. HSR Route Dec|slons The barrier effect of the HSR alignment would be much greater with high speed through trains than it would with lower speed trains, all of which stop at the Bakersfield station. If the mainline route for HSR through the Valley is along the UP corridor, the Truxtun Station will be an off-line two track station. No additional right of way would be required aside from air rights over the BNSF Yard. If the BNSF corridor is selected, than the Tmxtun Station becomes a four track main line station mandating an elevated four track station. Not only would the station cross section be narrower for the off-line station, but the noise and other impacts would be reduced. Crosstown Centennial Freeway Construction of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway paralleling the HSR alignment would improve regional access to the station and to Downtown, but it would also accentuate the barrier impact of the elevated HSR track separating Downtown fi'om the area immediately to its south. HSR oriented land.uses. The location of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway ramps would tend to concentrate local access onto Q Street. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 respectively show a preliminary 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5- 1 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI,~ Figure 5-1 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS ~ Figure 5-2 \~,~J mo.oum~ POSSIBLE INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS - Wilbur Smith Associates,s°u"cE: Ci~/o~eak~r~iefd CENTENNIAL CORRIDOR DOWNTOWN ~ ~ O~F~OU~E 5-~- 5/2e/0~ BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSi,C, ~coNo~ Figure 5-3 Wilbur Smith ~sou~c~: ¢i~,ofe,~keraietd TRUXTUN STATION/CENTENNIAL FREEWAY CROSS-SECTION3861 iO\FiGuRECONCEPTs-3- 5/28/03 TRUXTUN STATION SITE alig~wnent for the new Crosstown Centennial Freeway and a cross section for the freeway relative to rail facilities. West of Bakersfield High School the Freeway would be located along the north side of BNSF's tracks. Just to the east of the High School the Freeway would cross over to the south side of BNSF tracks and then cross back to the north side east of Amtrak's Station. A two direction freeway access roadway would be constructed along 14th Street with signalized intersections at Chester Avenue and at Q Street. The elevated freeway would have approximately a 150 foot wide cross section. Two freeway elevations have been defined, one at 30 feet above ground and the second at 53 feet above ground. The freeway is anticipated to serve up to 160,000 daily vehicle trips (as a point for comparison the State Route 99 Freeway near California Avenue presently carries about 120,000 daily vehicle trips). HSR and the Crosstown Centennial Freeway will need to be constructed at different elevations, as the freeway snakes across the BNSF and HSR alignment. If HSR serves the Truxtun Station site on an elevated structure, the freeway desirably should be the higher elevation, with HSR running between it and the BNSF Yard. Access ramp plans for Chester Avenue and for Q Street would need to be modified to avoid elevation conflicts with HSR. The need for four vertically separated transportation facilities in the corridor (BNSF, HSR, Freeway, and Access Ramps) probably would push the height of the freeway up to 75 feet above ground level, with the ramps located at an elevation between the freeway and HSR. Location of HSR 75 feet above ground level would further complicate vertical circulation for passengers and their baggage to platform levels. These freeway/rail alignment conflicts requiring higher level construction would increase construction costs. San Joaquln Service A principal benefit of this site is its proximity to the San Joaquin Amtrak station. This proximity would facilitate passenger transfer connections, sharing of the Amtrak feeder bus terminal and possibly even the sharing of an expanded station. These are all important strengths. If the San Joaquin service becomes infeasible after HSR begins, most of these potential benefits disappear. Discontinuance of San Joaquin service south of Fresno, however, offers the opportunity to utilize the BNSF Yard's north side track approach for HSR operating at-grade into the current Amtrak station. BNSF would need to be reimbursed with expanded yard and approach track capacity. This might be l~ss expensive than provision of a totally elevated HSR system. The at-grade option would not be viable, if 200 mph through trains operated on the BNSF tracks. Available Property A significant amount of property exists south of the railroad tracks for redevelopment. This potential could be increased further by right of way acquisitions for the Crosstown Centennial Freeway or as part of a partnering arrangement with the BNSF. One could in fact envision property acquired for the Crosstown Centennial Freeway, being used to expand BNSF's railyard and facilitation of the HSR construction. Figure 5-4 describes the station cross section envisioned by the EIS for the BNSF corridor. Its four track HSR cross section would be reduced to a two track cross section if the Truxtun station were an off-line station. It is important to note that the elevated cross section for the station (144 feet) is wider than the current 84 foot BNSF right of way. Figure 5-5 shows the envisioned cross 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 2 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSI~ Existing Prq:osed Approach m Figure 5-4 4-TRACK AERIAL STATION - TRUXTUN STATION Wilbur Smith Associates ~ SOURCE: DmM/H.Fris BNSF ALIGNMENT ~- a~6~ JO~F,GU.~ 5-4- 3/27/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS Ovef~ossing ~ Stairs! T~ ..~ Proposed :~a]road ROW Roadway ROW Railroad ROW Exis'dng ROW 4.7 r~j~4.4 rrk ~ Approach -_-)~stJng Roadway ROW Rai~'ct~l ROW R oo~way ROW  Figuro 5-5 \~.~ 2-TRACK AT-GRADE STATION - TRUXTUN STATION UPRR ALIGNMENT Smith source: DMJM/Horris TRUXTUN STATION Si l~ section for a north-south Union Avenue station. As mentioned, the Union Avenue alignment is not understood to be very promising for HSR. STATION PROGRAM As reported earlier, the program for this .station site is the same as was described for the Golden State station site. The EIS is proposing 750 parking spaces and one bus bay. Patronage forecast for Bakersfield's station do not include any consideration for commuter use. Nor does the parking forecast include consideration of rental car operations at the HSR station. Plans for HSR stations assume, that parking and other uses similar to rental car facilities would be the responsibility of local jurisdictions, not of the HSR system. For planning purposes, 800 to 1,000 parking spaces are suggested along with 200 spaces for rental cars. This is a similar figure to that proposed for the Golden State station site. Consolidation of Greyhound into this terminal is proposed in 'order to fully utilize available bus bays and provide a consolidated public transport terminal for Bakersfield. ILLUSTRATIVE SITE CONCEPT Three illustrative site concept plans were prepared for this site. As noted previously, the illustrative site plans are merely intended to show how a site might, be develop, and is not intended as the £mal site plan. Concept A illustrates how the station might look if the Crosstown Centennial Freeway is constructed parallel to the BNSF alignment. Concept B shows how a station might be developed if the Crosstown Centennial Freeway is not constructed in the BNSF corridor. Concept C illustrates a station development plan, if the Truxtun Station is developed as an off-line station and Amtrak San Joaquin service is discontinued. This concept would run HSR trains at-grade through the station and would coordinate with BNSF expansion of track right of way. Either Concepts A or B would also function,' if the Trux, tun Station were an off-line two track HSR station. In summary, Concepts A and B are both elevated HSR stations either as a four track mainline station or two track off-line stations and Concept C is a two track off-line at- grade station. Concept A - Crosstown Centennial Freeway Station With the construction Of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway as shown in Figure 5-2, its Q Street access ramps would severely limit access to the area south of the Amtrak station.' Station access to Q Street betweenthe freeway frontage road and the railroad tracks is unlikely. Thus, the area south of the Amtrak Station would not have access from the West (Q Street), from the north (BNSF), from the south and most of the east (freeway ramps). Station area access could be improved by realigning the freeway access ramps to a more north/south alignment (Figure 5-6) and providing station driveways to/from the freeWay frontage road. Details of the elevations need to be coordinated with the freeway planning efforts. A station then could be developed for this area and parking could be provided under the freeway structm-e. The passenger station could be placed under the freeway, but would probably be better located at the site of the present Amtrak Station Depot. This north side location would provide the best pedestrian and transit access to Downtown. Concept A, however, would provide little economic benefit to the area between the freeway and California Avenue. 'The station itself would be separated from the potential southern development area by the 141 foot elevated HSR facilities and the 150 foot wide elevated freeway. Together these elevated transportation facilities would divide the north and south of tracks development downtown by an uninviting area almost a football field length. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 3 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS ,- Potential Existing Use Library Site I~evelopment Site 1200 Parking Pedestrian spaces '~ ~sR & B~tSF Ra%%roa~ Parking 15 - Buses I I ~ I ' .... ~ ~ I Potential ve opine ~~ntal~. ~ ~ Station Parking ~ Site ~,te ~ // . ' 40~ ~ Potential ;~ ' Potential  California Avenue Smith Associates ~ ILLUST~TIVE TRUXTUN STATION - CONCEPT A 386110~PASTEUP1 - 5/28/0~ TRUXTUN STATION SITE Most probably the area between the freeway and California AvenUe would develop as a freeway oriented use, rather than a HSR oriented use. Concept B - No Crosstown Freeway Station If the Crosstown Centennial Freeway were not to be constructed parallel to the BNSF alignment, the area south of the elevated HSR tracks would have greater potential for HSR related redevelopment and economic benefit. Figure 5-7 describes how this station might be developed with a stronger south side emphasis. Station parking would be located in a structure south of the HSR tracks and the HSR station depot would be located on the south side of the tracks. A pedestrian underpass would connect the HSR station with the current Amtrak station and its feeder bus terminal. The three level parking structure would help to buffer the railroad corridor from commercial and residential developments south of the tracks. Access to the HSR station would be from California Avenue via S Street and U Street. Concept C - UP Mainline with Off-line Station at Truxtun If the mainline HSR service operates along the UP corridor and the Truxtun Station were developed solely as an off-line station, it might be possible to develop it asan at-grade HSR station. This would depend on the fate of the San Joaquin service. If the San Joaquin service was discontinued south of Fresno and replaced by HSR service, the station area BNSF right of way currently used by San Joaquin trains could be developed for at grade HSR service to this off-line station. High speeds would not be required for the off-line station area tracks. Some additional right of way would be required in order to eliminate the need to share track with BNSF trains. This might be accomplished in parmership with BNSF, if they have an interest in expanding their freight yard. Observations indicate that the'BNSF Yard is very busy. Figure 5-8 illustrates how an at-grade station might be developed. Obviously, the success of joint development south of the tracks would depend on decisions to construct the Crosstown Centennial Freeway parallel to HSR. A three-level parking structure would be constructed on the south side of the tracks along with commercial and residential development. A pedestrian overpass would be constructed over the HSR and BNSF tracks connecting to the Depot Building located on the north side of the tracks. The Depot building would be an expansion of the current Amtrak Station. The current Amtrak feeder bus terminal would be reused as shown in Figure 5- 8. This scheme could involve no elevated transportation structures (railroad or freeway) through downtown. It is also possible that this at-grade HSR station concept could be developed with an elevated Crosstown Centennial Freeway. MARKET PERSPECTIVE Station accessibility, security and ease' of parking are all important issues for potential HSR patrons. Station Access The Truxtun station site is very accessible from the Downtown and benefits from a regional transportation system that is focused on the Downtown. Completion of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway would further increase regional accessibility by highway to the station vicinity. Crosstown Centennial Freeway plans show downtown access via a two-way frontage road aligned roughly along 14th Street. Freeway access ramps would be at Chester and at Q 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 4 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS Potential Development ' Library Site Site Development Parking 15 - Buses Depot Potential Light Industrial Site 3-Leve~ pa~.~og St[~ctu[e NORTH 0 400 Scale 200 Potential ' Commercial Potential Multi-family Site Potential Multi-family Site ~ Signalized Intersection Site California Avenue ~ Figure 5-7 '~¥ilbur Smith Associates'. ILLUSTRATIVE TRUXTUN STATION - CONCEPT B 386110\PASTEUP1 - 5/28/03 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIfi Hotel Site Potential . Library Site . Development ~-'? ' Parking 1S - Buses ~ ..... i-L ..... '~: ~-' -'~'" ' ........ Potential Office.Site 3_Le~e~ ~a~k~n9 St[~cttl~e i [ NORTH, 4oo I Scale 200 ~;ea open ('~ Signalized Intersection California Avenue ~r~ ~ Figure 5-8 Wilbu~ Smith ~sociates ~ ILLUST~TIVE TRUXTUN STATION - CONCEPT C 386110~PASTEUP 1 - 5/28/03 TRUXTUN STATION SITE Street. Without the Crosstown Centennial Freeway, traffic access to the southern HSR parking would be to/from California Street. Pedestrian and bus access is excellent to Downtown. With the exception of the Crosstown Centennial Freeway Concept A, the Truxtun station site concepts have two access points to California Street, which should be adequate. Concept A has the Crosstown Centennial Freeway to augment its two access points to California Street. Security The security issues would include the pedestrian crossings of the railroad and the security of the parking area. Concepts A and B, which are both elevated HSR concepts, employ a pedestrian underpass for the connection. Pedestrian underpasses are generally preferred by pedestrians (only 12 to 15 foot elevation change versus 50 to 55 foot elevation change for overpasses), but they can prove to be a security problem. Careful design is needed to minimize crime and vandalism. All three station concept plans provide compact parking structures. Ease of Parking To patrons, ease of parking also means cost of parking. All three concepts provide the required number of patron parking spaces. Concept A would provide these on a surface lot that would probably have a lower parking fee than the parking structures. Concept A could also provide parking to support parking demands Downtown. Concept A proposes to provide 1,800 surface parking spaces compared to 1,250 structured spaces for concept B and 1,500 structured spaces for Concept C. Breakeven parking fees for surface lots are about $2 per day per space versus. $5 for structured parking. Obviously, the lower fees for surface parking would be more attractive than the fees needed to cover cost for parldng structures. Viewed from another perspective, the City or pa. rking provider could make more profit from the surface lot than from a parking structure. SERVICE PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE Golden Empire Transit (GET), Greyhound, Amtrak and the railroads would have differing perspectives on the development of a station on the Truxtun site. Golden Empire Transit Being located in the downtown area, the Truxtun Avenue HSR station site would be easy to serve. Route 9 at present directly links the site to the Downtown Transit Center via Truxtun and Q Streets. Route 9 operates every 30 minutes on Saturdays and weekdays. A direct connection is missing, however, to the airport and a new shuttle link would need to be established in order to make this connection. It should be noted that bringing Route 9 into stations with bus terminals south of the tracks would be more difficult than serving the station bus terminal on the north side of the tracks. All three station concept plans retain the feeder bus terminal on the north side of the railroad tracks. Amtrak San Joaquin Service Concepts A and B both retain the San Joaquin connection on the lower level, while Concept C is predicated on the curtailment of San Joaquin service south of Fresno. Concepts B and C expand the current Amtrak station building, while Concept A proposes a separate HSR Depot Building on the south side of the tracks. The most seamless connection and most efficient station operating scenario would be for HSR and Amtrak to share the same station building. The 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TEP, MINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 5 J TRUXTUN STATION SlTF elevated HSR concepts (A and B) and the at-grade Concept C would all involve very disruptive construction period impacts on Amtrak operations. Greyhound Intercity Bus Service The direct HSR connection to Los Angeles will eliminate the need for some of the current feeder bus loading bays at the Amtrak Station. The proximity to downtown and the potential availability of bus bays, might interest Greyhound to relocate into the HSR station' complex. Relocation of the Greyhound operations to the Truxtun Station would not be very difficult, as it is yery near their current terminal (18th Street and F Street). UP and BNSF Operations It is difficult to predict UP's view of this station site, if HSR is selected t© operate along the UP corridor through _the Valley. Neither the UP north BNSF would likely want their corridor selected for the Valley HSR operation. UP would want grade separation of their tracks through Bakersfield. The BNSF would not likely want HSR operating over or adjacent to their important Bakersfield Yard. If the BNSF has a strong interest in expanding its yard, it might be interested in working with the CHSRA and the City. If the at-grade Concept C is selected, BNSF would want current at-grade crossings eliminated. GOOD NEIGHBOR PERSPECTIVE Station Location The Downtown Truxtun/S Street Station site is southeast of the existing Amtrak station and between S Street and Union Avenue. A few blocks to the east are the recently built Convention Center and Holiday Inn Select Hotel. Farther' east includes the Downtown area with City and County offices, additional hotels, restaurants, shopping and other community facilities. Access to and from this station alternative is ideal since it is immediately adjacent to the existing Amtrak station and rail corridors. Compatibility with Land Use Existing The City of Bakersfield's zoning designations (2002) identifies numerous land uses within 1.5 miles of the Downtown/Truxtun and S Street Station as shown in Figure 5-9. The existing land uses surrounding the site are a mix of industrial, commercial and single family residential. The station site is located in a general manufacturing industrial zone (M-2) with light manufacturing facilities directly to the south and east. Commercial uses are both north and west of the station site which includes hotels, retail, office space and civic center uses. Farther south of the station site are three bloCks of single-family homes leading to a limited multiple family dwelling zone. This station site has the most diversified land uses with several redevelopment areas planned for future growth. Proposed The City's General Plan (2010) does not show any significant land use changes near the station site. The General Plan shows a concentration of mixed-use/major office commercial use immediately.north and west of the project site. Further West beyond the mixed-use area is designated office commercial which leads to high then low residential densities. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 6 TRUXTUN STATION SITE The land use opportunities for this station would occur adjacent to the west where mixed-use options may be appropriate. This area would add to the intensification of uses to insure transit supportive capabilities. The sites identified near the station would be predominately commercial, civic/cultural, and office uses, with residential areas being supportive as secondary uses. This station should experience higher ridership as the land use intensifies and mixed-use project increase. Redevelopment Potential The station site is located in the City's designated Old Town Kern Redevelopment Area with the Downtown Redevelopment area in close proximity to the west 'and the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment area directly north. The station has access to many proposed and existing facilities including apartments, hotels, restaurants, and shopping areas. The Downtown Redevelopment project encompasses 16 square blocks in the central business district. The station site is less than 1.5 miles from the Civic Center, City Hall, major county administration buildings, the public library, Convention Center, and Holiday Inn Select. A few miles to the west there is a major employment center with two major shopping malls (Valley Plaza Shopping Center 3 miles south;'East Hills Mall 3 miles northeast). Some of the more recent redevelopment projects involve mixed-use developments. The Padre Hotel is being restored and enhanced with new retail uses throughout the ground floor and 100 apartment units on the above floors. The streetscape design along Wall Street Alley has recently been completed where the street is closed for special events. Chester Avenue Streetscape has been expanded and includes more than t50 large trees, new cast-iron tree grates, decorative street lights, comer bollards and new trash receptacles. This station site has the greatest potential for redevelopment activities with all three of the City designated redevelopment areas within a few miles. New offices are being constructed on vacant parcels just bordering the Amtrak station and there are historical buildings that offer prospective low cost restoration opportunities. The greatest opportunities appear to be north of Truxtun Avenue, since the area between Truxtun and the BNSF tracks is already well developed and the area south of the BNSF tracks will be largely screened by the Crosstown Centennial Freeway. Consistency with Existing Plans and Policies The Downtown station site emphasizes the mixed-use development policies of the various agencies. A new Downtown HSR station can act as an economic stimulus by increasing demand for infill development. Factors such as restoring existing facilities by offering lower construction costs and subsidized costs through transit-oriented developments can support growth around a downtown station. This' station site would also encourage new downtown businesses and promote mixed-use after-work activities. ,. Some of the General plan and community strategies that support a Downtown station include: · Expand the downtown street light design and streetscape design, and incorporate benches, garbage cans, tables and chairs. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5.7 TRUXrUN STATION SIT~ · Develop River Street to become a center for community activities and outdoor activities. · Encourage the use of trees and flowers, lighting, street furniture, art signage, and flags. Use surface material that enriches the paving options on streets, sidewalks, and curbing. · Recognize historic buildings, sites and neighborhoods. Provide history of historic building/sites to be placed in a visible area. · Develop historic walking and trolley tours. · Redevelop individual city blocks by using mixed-use to get funding for housing. Use transit villages to obtain additional funds. Place them near Amtrak or GET stations and they will qualify as "transit oriented developments." · Develop land use policies that encourage in-fill development while discouraging urban sprawl and leapfrog development into prime agricultural lands. · Encourage and provide business development and entrepreneurial opportunities. By identifying needs of small business and existing family business development and entrepreneurial opportunities. Create business development initiatives centered around industry cluster groups. Growth Inducements This station site has high potential to stimulate infill developments. With recent concentrations of redevelopment near the site, there are plans to build more intensified development with a mixture of housing, retail and commercial uses. Within the Downtown district, there are historic buildings sites as well as potential areas of mix use that will qualify as transit oriented developments. This will create demand for in fill development to connect existing facilities with greenbelts and publicizing lower costs through existing infrastructure. Growth inducing impacts would not be as significant as those associated with the Airport Station Site. Job Generation Potential A high speed rail hub in the downtown area would have the equivalent economic impact of a medium-sized airport located in the heart of a central business district. The high speed rail' will bring more people and private sector, jobs to downtown Bakersfield in almost every industry from restaurants to wholesale trades. A high speed rail terminal can become the focal points for commercial redevelopment and promote substantial new development in surrounding areas. A high speed rail network pulls together the regional economy and promotes intra-regional business growth. The development of improved rail service can provide a significant boost to travel and tourism by encouraging weekend leisure trips by families from smaller towns to the~ major cities and vice versa. Parking and Traffic All three station site concept plans' provide for station access from the south (California Avenue or the new Crosstown Centennial Freeway). Traffic intrusion into established neighborhoods would not be a potential source of complaints, as there are no housing units presently located in this area. Some potential for parking abuse, however, would be associated with any of the three concepts. HSR patrons would seek to park free in adjacent downtown parking facilities, rather than pay $3 to $5 daily for parking in the HSR parking structure. A parking management plan ' 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 8 TRUXTUN STATION SITE and enforcement program would be needed to address this potential problem. Property Tax Impacts The 1996 Economic Impact and Benefit/Cost of High Speed Rail for Cali. fomia found the following based on an analysis of the Truxtun site: · A HSR station at the downtown site would add to the synergy created by the convention center and the new Amtrak Station; · New office development could possibly shift from the southwest quadrant to the downtown as businesses desire to have convenient access to a variety of transportation modes; · Demand for lodging facilities may also result, along with hospitality related uses, such as retail and dining establishments; and · Between 2000 and 2020, approximately 30 to 35 percent of the projected value of new development within one-half mile of a proposed downtown Bakersfield HSR station is estimated to be attributed to high speed rail. This amounts to about $23.5 to $27.4 million (1995 dollars). Recognizing that a substantial amount of the current development along Truxtun Avenue is public and does not pay property taxes, increased value of these public buildings would not add to property tax revenues. DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS PERSPECTIVE Parcels, Ownership and Size The assessor's parcel number (APN), ownership and parcel sizes are identified in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. The parcels are show on the map in Figures 5-9 and 5-10. Displacements Development of a HSR station on this site would involve acquisition of the industrial parcels south of the tracks and perhaps some acquisitions along the BNSF right of way needed to widen the corridor and facilitate construction. Right of way acquisitions possibly could be partnered with the Crosstown Centennial Freeway Project or with the BNSF. Development Constraints The key physical constraints affecting development of a HSR station at this site are the BNSF tracks and in the future will likely include the Crosstown Centemfial Freeway. Geology The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps for the City and County of Bakersfield show that the Truxtun site is not located on an area that is considered a potentially active fault. The entire Bakersfield area is considered seismically active and could experience severe ground shaking and surface readjustment in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIl. OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 9 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS ~O~t' I.J ~lOl',l AVE. CUR~NS ~. ~ Wilbu PARCEL ~P - EAST OF AMT~K STATION BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS TRUXTUN AVE. 16TH ST. _~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~ I [~ / ~ ~ / ~ Figure 5-10 Wilbu~ ~R~ ~ - ~gI~/IR~XI~ ,~,~ ox~s~tu~, a/~/oa TRUXTUN STATION SITE Implementation of General Plan policies, the Uniform Building Code and Safety Element policies would mitigate potential significant impacts to people and structures to a level of less than significant. (City of Bakersfield. General Plan Update DEIR SCH #1989070302. 2002. PP. 4.6-8 - 19.) Utilities The site is presently developed and is served by utilities. Utility information is as follows: · Sewer - a 14-inch line runs parallel to Union Avenue and an 8-inch line that runs just south of Truxton Avenue. · Electricity- there are two circuits available to provide service to the site. · No details available at present for telephone, gas, water or cable service. Railroad If the UP corridor is selected for HSR service, the Truxtun site would function as a two track off- line station. However, if the BNSF line is selected for HSR service, the Truxtun site would function as a mainline four track station. Neither railroad would likely want their mainline corridor selected for HSR, unless sizeable compensation was provided. With Truxtun developed as a four track mainline station (BNSF HSR), about six miles of station siding track would need to be constructed (three miles of track in each direction). Station tracks would extend from just east of Oak Street to the junction with UP mainline tracks near Haley Street on the west. With Truxtun developed as a two track off-line station, about 20 miles of station access tracks would need to be constructed (ten miles in each direction). With the Truxtun site developed as a double tracked at-grade off-line station, 20 miles of track would need to be constructed - mostly at- grade. The BNSF will likely push for yard improvements and the elimination of at-grade traffic crossings for any station concept at Truxtun. SUMMARY · Several ways are possible to develop a HSR station on this site. · A HSR station at this site would facilitate coordination with Amtrak San Joaquin service and with Greyhound Bus services. · Right of way acquisition appears relatively simple and displacement of businesses would be minimal. · ProximitY to Downtown offers the greatest pedestrian and transit access opportunities of any of the sites. · Opportunities for HSR station to serve as a catalyst for economic development downtown is probably greatest at this site. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 10 TRUXl"UN STATION SITE Table 5-1 AMTRAK TRUXTUN SITE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER, OWNERSHIP, VALUE ,Ad-ea Perimeter PERPROP APN (Sq. Ft.) (Ft?) Land Vel Impr Vel Vel EXMPT Vel Net Vel 6352002 8589.23 393.12 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6352003 8566.33 393.00 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6352006 75316.61 1216.63 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6360012 48473.09 934,35 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540008 9692.77 629.44 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540008 21154.42 t037.48 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540008 307583.31 2866.77 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540010 111158.36 1363.73 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540014 183691.09 2563.52 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540015 80462.85 1148.66 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540016 165877.20 7017.45 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540017 28719.88 779.24 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540025 78643.79 1302.77 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540026 58644.88 988.73 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540029 13183.34 546.78 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540030 10158.38 403.16 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540033 11983.84 439.41 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6540034 26448.82 729.72 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6352002 8589.23 393.12 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6352003 8566.33 393.00 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 6352006 75316.61 1216.63 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 11 TRUXTUN STATION SITE Table 5-2 TRUXTUN. EAST OF AMTRAK SITE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER~ OWNERSItlP~ VALUE Area Perimeter APN (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) Name Asse Address Land Val Impr Val PERPRO Val EXMPT Val Net Val SEVEN-UP/RC $ 16150007 26501.54 659.45 Bo'rrLING CO 3220 E 26TH STVERNON CA 90058 $ 102,800.00 242,500.00 $ $ $ 345,300.00 324 OAK ST # R BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16150008 27025.26 688.44 DE ALBA ALFONSO 93304 $ 98,840.00 100,200.00 $ $ $ 199,100.00 SEVEN-UP/RC $ 16150012 29984.82 792.52 BOIl'LING CO 3220 E 26TH STVERNON CA 90058 $ 100,900.00 16,940.00 $ $ $ 117,800.00 RUDOLPH 16150013 1805.48 489.49 BERTRAM F JR P O BOX 2302 CARMEL CA 93921 $ 64.00 $ $ $ $ 64.00 FRANCHISE REALTY $ 16150014 43352.00 927.31 INTRST CORP 4600 MING AV BAKERSFIELD CA 93309 $ 203,200.00 457,600.00 $ - $ $ 660,800.00 324 OAK ST # R BAKERSFIELD CA 16150016 33973.34 777.40 DE ALBA ALFONSO 93304 $ 124,800.00 $ $ $ $ 124,800.00 OROZ MANUEL A & $ 16150017 50775.07 1006.32 RACHEL J 131 E 19TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 163,500.00 157,500.00 $ $ - $ 321,000.00 SCHIMNOWSKI DON 16260002 16002.43 520.53 & CAROLYN 127 E 18TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 25,250.00 $ - $ $ $ 25;250:00 SCHIMNOWSKI DONALD J & $ 16260003 12123.74 467.79 CAROLYN 205 E 18TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 23,250.00 ' 164,300.00 $ $ $ 187,500.00 16260004 2245.75 291.29 $ $ $ $ $ 16260005 1902.17 195.10 $ $ $ $ $ 16260006 1985.62 207.76 $ $ $ $ $ 16260007 4550.34 283.07 $ $ $ $ $ 16260008 5257.91 312.67 $ $ $ $ $ 16260009 6070.72 344.22 $ $ $ $ $ FIRST CHURCH RELIGIOUS 222 EUREKA ST BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16260011 3918.68 254.94 SCIENCE 93305-5622 $ 9,320.00 43,960.00 $ $ 53,280.00 $ FIRST CHURCH RELIGIOUS $ 16260012 11348.91 450.42 SCIENCE 222 EUREKA BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 13,250.00 78,780.00 $ $ 92,040.00 $ - HUTH FAMILY $ 16260013 18744.91 549.60 TRUST C P O BOX 692 BAKERSFIELD CA 93240 $ 12,440.00 158,200.00 $ - $ $ 170,600.00 SCHIMNOWSKI DONALD J & $ 16260014 7457.05 397.87 CAROLYN 127 E 18TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 14,390.00 3,873.00 $ - $ $ 18,270.00 SCHIMNOWSKI DONALD J & $ 16260015 3449.75 343.93 CAROLYN 127 E 18TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 7,307~00 2,102.00 $ $ $ 9,409.00 SCHIMNOWSKI DONALD J & $ 16260016 5769.19 342.58 CAROLYN 127 E 18TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93305 $ 10,850.00 1,327.00 $ $ - $ 12,180.00 CiTY OF 16260017 1667.78 253.26 BAKERSFIELD UNKNOWN CA $ $ $ $ - $ 16260018 5153.49 291.04 $ $ - $ $ ~ $ 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF: GOVERNMENT5 Page 5 - 12 TRUXTUN STATION SITE Table 5-2 TRUXTUN EAST OF AMTRAK SITE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER, OWNERSHIP, VALUE Area Perimeter APN (Sq. Ft.) (Ft.) Name Asse Address Land Val Impr Val PERPRO Val EXMPT Val Net Val FIRST CHURCH RELIGIOUS 222 EUREKA ST BAKERSFIELD CA 16260019 1553.15 192.60 SCIENCE 93305-5622 $ 2,689.00 $ - $ $ 2,689.00 MUNOZ REVOCABLE LIVING 4600 PANORAMA DR BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16260020 20668.47 576.82 TR 93306-1352 $ 172,800.00 115,200.00 $ $ $ 288,000.00 BALTAZAR RIGOBERTO N & 123 E 18TH ST BAKERSFIELD CA 93301- $ 16260021 9524.64 437.08 ESMERALDA 2913 $ 51,000.00 99,960~00 $ 32,500.00 $ $ 183,500.00 PATEL BHARAT P & $ 16270001 90579.67 1207.63 SHOBHANA 1622 UNIONAV BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 $ 150,000.00 104,000.00 $ 14,010.00 $ $ 268,000.00 BISHOP ISAIAH & 3211 WEST 78TH PL LOS ANGELES CA $ 16270002 8872.98 418.26 HAZEl M 90043 $ 18,070.00 36,140.00 $ $ $ 54,220.00 9501 MEADOWLEAF CT BAKERSFIELD $ 16270003 10958.46 429.88 SHORT KAY FETAL CA 93311 $ 7,398.00 11,490.00 $ $ $ 18,890.00 HALBROOK ELWOOD R & LINDA 219 EUREKA ST BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16270004 8508.57 378.07 L 93305-5621 $ 6,299.00 13,180.00 $ $ 7,000.00 $ 12,480.00 223 EUREKA ST BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16270005 5612.00 327.90 HEISEY FAMILY TR 93305-5621 $ 4,804.00 14,330.00 $ $ 7,000.00 $ 12,130.00 SALGADO CHARLES 4520 JOANNE AV BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16270006 6274.24 349.90 L & ARLETTE 93309 $ 14,180.00 63,830.00 $ $ $ 78,010.00 222 E TRUXTUN AV BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16270007 7202.67 382.53 LOPEZ KENNETH F 93305 $ 25,000.00 15,000.00 $ 5,450.00 $ $ 45,450.00 SALGADO CHARLES $ 16270008 18187.40 540.96 L & ARLE3-rE P O BOX 1527 BAKERSFIELD CA 93385 $ 5,947.00 2,123.00 $ $ $ 8,070.00 16360001 88323.02 1342.22 $ $ - $ $ $ 122164.4 $ 16360005 7 1416.31 4M INVESTMENTS P O BOX 3289 BAKERSFIELD CA 93385 $ 209,000.00 789,000.00 $ $ $ 998,000.00 16360006 13680.73 914.80 $ $ $ $ ATCHISON TOPEKA 5200 E SHEILA ST LOS ANGELES CA 16360008 39486.64 1029.28 & SANTA FE RR 90040 $ $ $ $ $ CARPENTER DAVID 2801 EL BERRENDO AV BAKERSFIELD $ 16460003 50673.65 1052.72 & BOBBYE TRS CA 93304 $ 43,160.00 52,520.00 $ $ $ 95,680.00 COMMENCO 9111 E DOUGLAS ST BOX 970 WICHITA $ 16460004 18197.07 554.01 CORPORATION KS 67201-0970 $ 122,300.00 352,600.00 $ $ $ 474,800.00 SEVEN-UP/RC $ 16150007 26501.54 659.45 BOTTLING CO 3220 E 26TH STVERNON CA 90058 $ 102,800.00 242,500.00 $ $ $ 345,300.00 324 OAK ST # R BAKERSFIELD CA $ 16150008 27025.26 688.44 DE ALBA ALFONSO 93304 $ 98,840.00 100,200.00 $ $ $ 199,100.00 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 - 13 TRUXTUN STATION SITE · Numerous unknowns would influence the development of a HSR station at this location including: future of Amtrak San Joaquin train service, construction of Crosstown Centennial Freeway and BNSF visions for the future of its downtown freight yard. · If the UP corridor is selected for HSR service, an expensive off-line station access track system might be required to connect this station. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAr ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT5 Page 5 - 14 Chapter 6 SUMMARY KEY ISSUES/UNKNOWNS A number of unknowns will have important beating on selection of the best HSR station site for Bakersfield. · Alignment (BNSF versus LIP north of Bakersfield and Grapevine versus Tehachapi south of Bakersfield) selected for HSR service in the Valley; · The post-HSR future for the Amtrak San Joaquin service; · CHSRA's definition of the "Base System" - will it include off-line station access track costs? Willingness of UP and BNSF to share their rights of way as well as other rail upgrade investment coordination; · Decisions regarding the Crosstown Centennial and the Golden State freeways; The Southern California Association of Government's feasibility finding regarding Meadows Field's role as a satellite regional airport serving the Los Angeles Region; The difficulty and cost of property acquisition and relocation efforts as well as how these relate to freeway development efforts; and · Findings from the systemwide HSR EIS. HSR PATRON ATTRACTIVENESS There are three major potential markets for HSR in Bakersfield: commuter, airport access and intercity rail travel. Only one of these markets has been analyzed and that was for market and airline service conditions prior to 9/11. Intercity rail travelers who are residents of the region will seek a station with low cost parldng. Residents of other areas visiting Bakersfield most probably would prefer a center city location within walking distance of their destinations. Most commuters would prefer a station site located towards Los Angeles and with free or very low cost parking. Airport access patrons will be seeking a seamless transfer link between the HSR station and the airport passenger terminal. SERVICE PROVIDERS The on-going HSR EIS and engineering studies will identify preferences for the system. This EIS is scheduled to be complete in August and completion date for the engineering studies is undefined. Golden Empire Transit could serve any of the three sites. Provision of a new airport shuttle service connecting to the HSR would be least expensive for the site nearest the airport. The annual cost for one GET bus operating 365 days a year 16 hours a day is about $300,000. It 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 6-1 SUAYdv~RY is likely that Greyhound would prefer the Truxtun station site, as it might be able to relocate to this facility. Both the UP and the BNSF will not want HSR and they will have an important influence on the total and local cost for HSR. STATION SITE CONCLUSIONS · All three of the station site vicinities could be developed into a HSR station; · According to CHSRA all three of the station sites could be served by HSR trains. Airport Station · Feasibility of Meadows Field becoming a satellite regional airport will not be determined until SCAG completes its upcoming regional airport feasibility study update; · Selection of the Tehachapi route for HSR between Los Angeles and Bakersfield would appear to complicate the vision of Meadows Field becoming a satellite regional airport; since this route would pass by Palmdale before reaching Meadows Field; · Successful development of Meadows Field into a satellite regiOnal airport will require a seamless connection between HSR and the airport passenger terminal; · The environmental impacts for this site would primarily related to expansion of the airport (noise etc); · The cost of right of way would depend on coordination with. airport expansion efforts and with plans to upgrade state highways in the site area; · This HSR station site would probably involve the least land acquisition difficulties; and · The airport site would be out of direction for commuters. should this prove to be a viable HSR market. Golden State Station - · Best site for a station near Golden State Avenue and M Street appears tO be near F Street; · Proposed elevated freeway mi.'ght limit station ch-iveway access and could impact the attractiveness for waiting passengers and station area development; · Probably the least cost station, if the UP corridor is selected for HSR Service; · The environmental impacts for this site would depend substantially on the plans for the Golden State Freeway. The freeway potentially could mask impacts associated with HSR and a station at this location. If the station's orientation is towards the north, then adverse impacts could occur to the residential neighborhood located north of the tracks; 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR. TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 6-2 SU/vgV~ARY · The cost of right of way would depend on cost sharing with the proposed elevated freeway project as well as needs associated with HSR main line right of way and environmental impact mitigation needs; · If the BNSF corridor is selected for HSR service, this site would be less attractive; and · Property acquisition would be difficult and would involve significant relocation costs. Truxtun Station · A HSR station could be developed for this area in a number of ways depending on decisions regarding the Crosstown Centennial Freeway, on the post-HSR future of Amtrak's San Joaquin service and BNSF's interest improving its freight yard; · Property acquisition appears to be easier for this site than for Golden State, but more difficult than for the airport site. Right of way acquisition related to planned freeway developments in all three station site corridors would significantly impacts costs and efforts for the HSR station project (probably mutually beneficial); · Amtral¢ and Greyhound connections to HSR would be simplest; · Due to the Crosstown Centennial Freeway's location immediately south of the HSR alignment, most of the economic stimulus benefits associated with HSR would likely be oriented north of Truxtun Avenue; · The environmental impacts for this site would be largely mask by the planned freewa3. · Right of way costs would depend on cost sharing agreements with the Centennial Freeway project; · Probably the most convenient location for business People traveling to Bakersfield; and · If the UP alignment is selected for HSR, the Truxtun site would be an off-line station and might possibly require local funding participation for the added costs. EVALUATION ASSESSMENT As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, a set of evaluation criteria were adopted by the Balcersfield City Council and the Kern County Board of Supervisors to help judge the best site for a HSR station in the Bakersfield Region. Table 6-1 summarizes the study findings in terms of these criteria. Due to a number of important variables and unknowns, simple assessments were not possible for many of the criteria. For example, plans to construct .freeways in all three station site corridors complicated assessmeni of land use and environmental impacts as well as understanding of alignment and site development envelopes available for station development. 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAl ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 6-3 S UA~VV~,RY Table 6-1 STATION EVALUATION SUMMARY Station Evaluation STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES Criteria Airport Station Golden Station Truxtun Station Station design Accommodates Accommodates Accommodates characteristics Desired Program Desired Program Desired Program Right of way needs Related to freeway Related to freeway Related to freeway improvement efforts coordination coordination Operational None None None constraints Track alignment 4 track mainline 4 track mainline Possible 4 track considerations station station mainline station, but could be 2 track off- line station Technology and none none none service requirements Availability of Site utilities being Site is presently Site is presently adequate utilities at developed for Ind: served by utilities served by utilities the site Park Site support of Good if airport Good, except as might Good, except as might Patronage and revenue expands be limited by elevated be limited by freeway objectives freeway Site geology and Not on active fault Not on active fault Not on active fault engineering Feasibility of site Appears simple Coordinated with Coordinated with acquisition Freeway R/W Needs Freeway R/W Needs Ridership profiles and Potential for airport Good.for resident Good for resident and revenue forecasts access patronage to be intercity and non-resident intercity determined commuter markets and for commuter markets Physical constraints to Improvements to SR- Coordination with Coordination with station area 99 Freeway elevated freeway elevated freeway development Compatibility with Consistent Consistent Consistent adjacent land uses 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TEI:U~AINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 6-4 Table 6-1 STATION EVALUATION SUMMARY Station Evaluation STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES Criteria Airport Station Golden Station Truxtun Station Growth considerations Related to airport Potential limited by Potential directed expansion elevated freeway north due to freeway Inter-connectivity Good for the airport, Difficult for Amtrak Good for all modes with other difficult for Amtrak San Joaquin Service transportation modes San Joaquin Service should it remain. should it remain. Good for others Pedestrian access except pedestrians poor. Impacts on existing Major Implications Needs link to airport Needs link to airport transportation for Airport Interface facilities Consistency with Good except for Good Good existing plans and unknowns associated policies with airport expansion Job generation Related to airport Good High potential expansion potential Property tax Tax impact difficult to Tax impact difficult to Tax impact difficult to impacts/Local Project predict, local cost risk predict, local cost risk predict, some risk for Costs would be low would be low local cost related to off line station Surface street Minimal Minimal Minimal transportation impacts Redevelopment Not in established In a redevelopment Covered by several potential and property redevelopment area area, except for the redevelopment areas tax increments residential neighborhood north of tracks Possible, but likely None None Availability of FAA provided by passenger funding programs to fees connect HSR station to an airport Use of the Vision Consistent with Consistent with Consistent with TOD 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 6-5 Table 6-1 STATION EVALUATION SUMMARY Station Evaluation STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES Criteria Airport Station Golden Station Truxtun Station 2020 Plan for urban airport growth downtown land use and sprawl implications policies development policies pedestrian promotion policies 386110 BAKERSFII:::LD HSR 'i'ERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 6-6 Appendix A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY 3B6110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TEP~INAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Metropolitan Bakersfield HIGH SPEED RAIL TERMINAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Stakeholder Interview Summary January 200,3 Prepared for Kern COG by: Deborah Hart Redman, Redman Consulting Project Consensus & Outreach Subconsultanf to Wilbur Smith Associates Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis I. 'Introduction In November 2002, the Kern County of Governments (Kern COG) initiated this study to evaluate three potential sites for a future High Speed Rail (HSR) terminal in the Greater Metropolitan Bakersfield area. A critical goal of the study is to build a local consensus on a final recommendation to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) by spring of 2003, in advance of a potential CHSRA decision on the site. Consensus building is a major element of the study because each of the three sites is moderately or strongly supported by one of three major local stakeholders: the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern (including the Department of Airports) and the Downtown Business Association. The three sites under consideration are: · Truxtun Avenue and S/Union Street (near the Amtrak station) · Golden State/M Street (may be at Golden State from M to F Street) · 7th Standard Road West (2 miles from Meadows Field Airport) As a first step toward building consensus, the consultant team interviewed members of each of those agencies or organizations, in an effort to understand the history of developments to this point, and each group's current views and issues of most importance. This initial subtask was designed primarily as a listening exercise, and is presented in a straightforward manner in this report, with minimal additional material. · Note that community groups (as distinct from stakeholders) have also begun to be interviewed. Contacts will be made with the following organizations, and to the extent possible, interviews, will be conducted, with key representatives of each organization, either in person, via telephone or a .combination of telephone contact and email. The groups currently listed are as follows: Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Smart Growth Coalition Kern Transportation Foundation Golden Empire Transit (completed 12/10/02 Project Clean Air (completed 12/10/02) Kern Regional Transit (completed 12/18/02) Sierra Club Golden Empire Division of American Institute of Architecture American Public Works Association Potential Additional Organizations Suggested by Stakeholders: Kern County and nearby Economic Development Corporations il, Methodology for Conducting Interviews On November 26, 2002, the Kern COG project manager and Executive Director approved the following set of questions to be used as a guide for stakeholder discussions: ,Group Discussion Guide Topics o · What is your vision of how Metropolitan Bakersfield should develop? o How'have you come to see [name of site] as the most appropriate HSR terminal for the City of Bakersfield? o What are the most important criteria for evaluating a terminal site? 2 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis o What potential environmental impacts do you see as important with respect to your currently preferred site? Do you see any mitigations (if applicable)? o What do you see as the strengths as weaknesses of your perspective with respect to the terminal site? o In what ways is your perspective flexible? o In your view, what multiple goals should be achieved in siting the HSR terminal? o How do you see the different needs of the CHSRA, potential rail passengers (both local and pass-through) and the community in which the terminal is ultimately located? o How do you see the integration of rail and other tranSportation modes in the greater Bakersfield area? o Which portions of the Kern Transportation Foundation evaluation do you agree with/disagree with, and why? (Facilitator will bring copy of summary matrix for discussion) o What would you like to let us know that we haven't asked? o Who do we absolutely need to talk to (either in addition, or in more depth)? o What would you like to know from the groups we will be interviewing next (Facilitator will bring list of community groups)? The stakeholder meetings took place mid-December 2002, in an informal interview format as indicated below: · Deborah Redman, interviewer · Approximately 4-6 people per group · Site determined by respective contact for each group · 1.5-2.0 hours per group Interviews with the three stakeholder groups were held as follows (listed chronologically): 1. Downtown Business Association Meeting Held at UC Merced Building December 10, 2002 5-7 PM Attendees at Downtown Business Association (DBA) Stakeholder Interview Name Title/Position Herman Ruddell DBA Board (Kern COG Project TAC) Art Carlock Chairman, Highway 99 Fred Prince DBA Cathy Butler DBA 2. Kern County Meeting Held at 2700 M Street December 11,2002 10 AM- Noon Attendees at Kern County Stakeholder Interview Name Title/Position David Price, III Director, Kern County Resource Management Agency , Barry Zoeller Executive Director, Kern County Board of Trade Craig Pope Kern County Roads Director Bill Wilbanks Assistant County Administrative Officer Ted James county Planning Chuck Lackey Engineering and Survey Services Ray Bishop (separately via Director, Department of Airports email/phone communications Guy Greenlee (separate Director, Kern County Community and Economic telephone interview) Development Department 3 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis 3. City of Bakersfield Meeting Held at 1501 Truxtun Avenue December 1 1, 2002 3-5 PM Attendees at City of Bakersfield Stakeholder Interview Name Title/Position Hon. Harvey Hall ! Mayor, City of Bakersfield Alan Tandy City Manager Raul Roias Director of Public Works Arnold Ramming Civil Engineer II (Kern COG Project TAC) Jack Hardisty Development Services Director III. Summary of Stakeholder Responses The following three tables represent a compilation of the three stakeholder groups interviewed (Downtown Business Association, Kern County and City of Bakersfield). The first table illustrates stakeholders views on the composition of high speed rail ridership they believe is most probable, which bears upon the purpose and need for specific terminal amenities and transportation support. The second table summarizes responses to questions posed to each group; the third table summarizes pros and cons for each potential site, from the perspective of each stakeholder group. The Department of Airports is presented separately from the remainder of Kern County stakeholders because of the distinct agency mission-dependent position strongly advocated by the Director of Airports. 4 MeLropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evalua{ion & Analysis Table 1: Who will be riding the High Speed Rail system? What will the ridership profile look like? Who will be using the Bakersfield Terminal? Agency Perspective on HSR Ridershi_p and Terminal Utilization City · A large mix of pass-through travelers from points north and south of Bakersfield (primarily San Francisco and Los Angeles) · The 30-50% of those stopping at Bakersfield will either have business in Bakersfield or consist of Bakersfield residents commuting outbound · Folks from surrounding towns who get to Bakersfield to get on the grid, traveling by Amtrak, bus or car to Bakersfield to get on HSR or an airplane · Those traveling from a town on the HSR alignment to get to an airport or regional/national transit · Travelers destined for cultural events (traveling both to and from Bakersfield) · Very improbable that a even a small percentage percentage of train passengers will come to Bakersfield to take air transportation to other destinations · Amtrak will serve as a regional feeder to the HSR train DBA we expect the major percentage of ridership for Bakersfield will be directly related to business and commerce, and to leisure travel. · Business travel to distant cities outside California (typically by air) will begin in BFL via HSR. At about 1.5 hours to SFO with a proposed direct airport connection, and less to LAX, there will be little reason to fly. Indeed, with HSR fares in the $35 range and air fare several times that, and travel time about the same considering a one hour advance airport arrival, most business travelers utilizing SFO or LAX will take the train. And this doesn't consider the ability to walk about the train, get coffee or a snack, and most importantly, being able use your phone and computer throughout the trip with little chance of weather delay. And it doesn't consider the limited options from' BFL if there is a flight delay. · Business travel to California cities by HSR will be significant. Business owners and managers will make significant use of the system, and access to consultants and related business purposes will no longer drive to sales meetings, buying trips, training classes conferences and so fodh. The ability to work while on the train will be discovered as a significant benefit. See Note 1. Similarly, business travelers from other California cities will come to Bakersfield by HSR to attend meetings, conferences and training. However, competition will dictate that many of these destinations will not always be adjacent to the HSR facility, and will be even more attractive if there is convenient economical and timely inter-modal interconnectivity. See Note 1. · Leisure travels to distant cities outside California. (typically by air) will make similar use of the train as Business travelers traveling to cities outside California. Families groups however, may still use the car when the cost of multiple HSR tickets exceeds the cost of driving plus parking, and an intangible hassle factor. · ' Leisure travel to California cities will have a similar pattern as Business travelers. Marketing for such venues as Disneyland, Six Flags, Sea World and others will surely offer direct connections from HSR stations to their venues to attract business. The same may be true for professional and college sports games of significance, such as playoffs or 5 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis championships. Tour groups and cruise ships operators will market and advertise connections to their venues from HSR. See Note 1. · Commutin,q to cities by HSR from Bakersfield will not be significant percentage of total patronage however, niche commuting by workers such as nurses, doctors, policemen, firemen and others who have or can arrange shod workweeks, may be important. While commuter fares from Bakersfield (the HSRA presently does no[ include such a fare in its business plan) will be costly; the real problems will be getting to and from each HSR station. Bakersfield does not have and is not planning a system of fast convenient transit to connect homes and residential communities to its proposed HSR terminal, and the cost and convenience of travel to and from one's work site at a distant HSR station is at best an unknown. · Travel to Bakersfield from California and more distant cities presents similar concerns in the reverse of those noted above. "Will travelers coming to Bakersfield find convenient economical local transit options? See Note 1 and 2 NOTE: 1, The choice to use HSR by many business, leisure and commuting travelers will be directly related to the cost and convenience of inter-modal inter-connectivity, i.e., can one get off the HSR and board local transit to their destination easily, timely, and economically, and return, at BOTH ends of the trip? Can one rent or hire a "clean-air-friendly" vehicle for local use economically? For arriving travelers, will timely connecting service to and from outlying communities, i.e. Buttonwillow, Taft, Wasco, Shafter, Delano, McFarland, Lamont, Arvin, Tehachapi, Lake Isabella and Frazier Park) be available from KRT, or others? Will the traveler know which HSR trains will make such connections if all do not? And will a local traveler going to a distant HSR station have similar interconnectivity to their final destination? wiiiAmtrak service continue? Some believe Amtrak, as it presently operates, will continue providing service to those communities not scheduled to reCeive HSR service. With only Wasco and Corcoran in this category, we do not see Amtrak surviving. Service for Wasco to Bakersfield (and Corcoran to either Fresno or HanfordNisalia by bus), and a host of other southern San Joaquin communities, could be provided by KRT transit bus more conveniently and economically. Hopefully KRT service to communities along both the UP and BNSF railroads could one day be upgraded to service by rail with light or commuter rail type "clean-air- friendly" vehicles. Growing KRT transit into service by rail will become increasingly more desirous as congestion on local streets and highways increases. NOTE: 2~ While Bakersfield's Centennial Garden and Convention Center offer facilities and events that may attract travel from distant cities by HSR, past experience shows such destination travel solely for day entedainment will not be a significant percentage of HSR patronage. With regard to a Truxtun station site being convenient to such venues as the Beale Library, our couds and city and county offices, it appears that the majority use of these facilities is by local people. Out of area users of these services that would travel by HSR do not appear to constitute a significant percentage of HSR patronage. County · Need to know more about the ridership demographic that is most probably going to emerge · Airport and ground transportation transfers will predominate in the ridership mix · Some percentage of HSR users will be commuters (mostly to So. Cai) who are attracted by lower housing costs (up to 40% of some metro Bakersfield subdivisions are reported purchased by people from Southern California) · Bakersfield HSR stop will serve the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Airports Travelers who want to avoid the Gra~estion and fog) Ridership profile will be influenced by a context of capacity limitations at LAX, Ontario, Burbank, Long Beach and John Wayne airports, pushing air passengers toward Bakersfield. This "reverse leakage" potential could be significant. · Ridership will continue to grow based on current origins and destinations (Phoenix, SF, LA, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas and Portland, etc.) . ~J~w rid~.rshin to 7~h Standard Station may reflect BFL markets that include travelers destined, for Guadalajara, Mexico City, Seattle, Leon-Guanajuato, Chicago, Dallas, New York, San Salvador, Honolulu an Morelia, who now use other means of reaching their destinations · Will pull ridership off Airport Bus of Bakersfield, passenger vehicles 7 Melropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Table 2: Bakersfield HSR Summary MatriX: Stakeholder Response to Questions (December 2002 Interviews) Issue City DBA County Dept. of Airports Vision for Metro Bakersfield Development should be planned. Metropolitan plan calls for "canters" Though Bakersfield will continue to All'Kern county residents and all Expansion growth must be development. Centers should be grow, it will be important to ci§es have a vital in terest in the balanced with redevelopment of the connected with center-to-center maintain ils current small town success of Meadows Field. central city and in-fill development, express transit (e.g., GET express charm and uniqueness. We are service from ~falley Plaza lo CBD looking for quality big city services, Envisions a world-class airport that Current boom in housing; City Is and BO) wi.th local transit focused with the friendliness and charm of is customer-oriented, complements moving beyond ils current "stand- on the center's hub. Each center a rural town. the Kern County Economy, and is alone" character. Bakersfield will should connect to HSR terminal, safe and effident. become in part a bedroom All this could develop into a light rail Bakersfield will be an area of community for Southern California, system with supporting P&R lots multiple centers--not characterized Preparing for the future by having due to relatively lower housing and employment concentralJons, by a sole central business distdcL infrastructure in place. costs and access to Southland jobs While proposed in both current and promised by HSR connection, newly updated General Plans, the QuesUons reality-basis of City's Centers concept is not well defined, vision for CBD high-density Expected doubling to tripling As a community, we need to do clustered housing supporting amount of downtown more with the concept, transit, etc. redevelopment in coming years. While the ciO/should and hopefully Need for Bakersfield to attract will develop a number of centers, . higher-paying jobs. Skepticism Downtown will serve as the center about ability of City to change its for the whole metrcpolilan area. In current character to take the foreseeable future we e)~pect to advantage of downtown site. see significant re-development and new development activity downto~,n. Such development should occur such that parcels are more fully developed. Downtown has a history of significantly under- developing sites compared to development potential allowed or permitted by code and zone. Kern Regional Transit presently serves distant centers, located along rail corridors, i.e., Wasce, Shatter, Delano, McFadand, Arvin, Lamont. KRT bus service could grow Into a regional rail connection to HSR terminal City should expand its green corridors beyond just Kern River trail system, and should include Class 1 bike trails. Vision for the Golden State terminal site includes a direct connection to the airport, and connec§ons to ~ downtown parking facilities and most major downtown business, 8 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Issue City DBA County Dept. of Airports arts,, governmental and retail facilities. Also includes a parking authority and business improvement district, both of which can help fund the HSR station facilities and amenities. Site is intended to anchor downtown development and reverse tendency to sprawl. A direct airport connecfion could be simply a Bus Rapit Transit service from the HSR terminal operating on and within its own ROW alongside the UP or HSR alignment on an easement, into the airpod terminal. Most important evaluation cdt·da -~ Inter-connectivity with other · Must meet CHSRA design -~ Look at infrastructure impacts, The airport sees' the migration of transportation modes cdtada without regard for "preference" air travelers to the Bakersfield · Impacts on existing · Must be fully intermodal, for . Ridership ca[chement area as vehicle to bring transportation facilities roads, freeways, and bus. future · Growth considerations high quality aviation services jobs Redevelopment potential and rail and light mil regional systems, · Interconnectivity to the community. Equally · important, the increase in air property tax increment remote park and dde lot locations · Traffic circulation (impacts on and a dedicated airport connection existing transportation facilities) service will mean our local travelers will have more choices for direct · Potential cost diEerential between CHSRA funding and local · Must maximize potential for · Job generation/economic service and more choices for pdce share + identification of funding to new development or re- development competitiveness. till gap development, thus creating the · Property tax impacts · Vision2020 and sprawl greatest potential for increased and Accessibility (circulation and implications new tax base (to pay for the ~arking availability) · Land use compatibility station) and · Cost · Growth considerations · Availability of utilities at the · Track alignment (will be site, or cost to extend them (DBA determined by CHSRA) does not see utility availability as an issue) · Cost · Growth considerations · Job Generation · Cost Potential environmental issues -~ Vehicular access to/from HSR · Air quality With good inter- · Congesfion/transportalJon There is a limit to wanted aviation terminal; offset by immediately modal planning, a HSR facility can impacts growth. The current runway adjacent (programmed) Centennial have significant positive impacts on · Air quality configuration will become saturated Corridor ' our severe air qualib/problem · Noise at approximately 12 Million passengers per year. Up to that · Noise -- The UP alignment · Vibration point growth would be welcomed. · Sprawl (land use and agdculfural impacts) and the Golden State site have · Sprawl (local land use and · Congestion only very minimal noise sensitive cumulative agricultural impacts; We estimate 200 jobs generated for receptors compared to the need to reserve buffer space every additional one million travelers. Truxtun/BNSF with many. around terminal) · Congestion - The Golden State site is served by an already established (including new roads with identified firm funding sources) _ Site is easily 9 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Issue City DBA County Dept. of Airports roached via SR 178, Niles/Monterey, SR 204, Wes[ Side Parkway via an improved 24'~ St, SR 99 via an improved 24~ St., and SR 58 and Union Avenue. This site - does not depend on new roadways that have no identified funding and which may be at dsk nor not being funded or built as envisionsd. · Sprawl -A downtown station will influence a re-focusing of development and should result in more intense development in downtown and significant thrill within developed areas. Flexibility on perspective taken Per policy board action, there is Although DBA prefers the Golden Very flexible, as long as there is Strong advocate for 7~ Standard strong support for Tmxtun Ave. as State site, if lhe CHSRA chooses to demonstrated ability for County to site, as most accessible to Airport.. the number one candidate site; if use the BNSF line through town, be able to serve the site; that the Other options would have a that proves unacceptable to the Tmxtun Ave. site ,:.'cu!d may be site is cost effective, and makes tremendous impact on the CHSRA, then number two'would be satisfactory however, other sites sense from a ridership standpoint, community and the traveler. The the Golden State site. along the BNSF should also be Mild preference for Golden State a~lditional~mileage for people examined, such as between over Truxtun, but willing to look at movers and transit systems to the Chester, Catifomia and H Street facts for all three sites, airport would saturate the based on 1, the high number of downtown street system GET routes passing this location 2, because Chester and California connect direclty to SR 58 and SR 99, and 3, the ease of pedesbian access to the downtown core DBA wants a downtown site that performs well against local and statewlde criteria. Multiple Goals to Consider in HSR · Must be truly multi-modal · See responses to evaluation · See responses to evaluation The advent of the HSR require we Siting · Must provide easy access to criteria, above criteria, above, think outside of the conventional all citizens of Greater Metro · Meet required HSRA design box. and look at likely scenarios Bakersfield criteria/needs, that could bdng tens of millions of · Maintain a downtown as a · Maximize potential for new passengers to Bakersfield. Ail of central focal point for civic growth and re-development to create tax which are changing modes of and development, as well as dvic increment for financing local transportation from rail to plane. pdde improvements. · Convenient connecUvity · Avoid over reliance on new between HSR and ground roads and freeways that do not transportation have a firm fully identified funding · Place terminal near Iowe*r- sources. income housing to enhance · Strengthen downtown as the jobs/housing balance urban metropolitan "center". · CHSRA needs a functionally efficient system, but also one that will entice travelers to get out of their cars and use the HSR system Views of KTF study General agreement with K'i-F A number of troubling KTF was a generalized lirst cut at Current study ha~ no provision for 10 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Issue City DBA County Dept. of Airports criteria, and decision to limit ~ancies exist in the K-rF reducing a larger se[ of altemalJve the Los Angeles conundrum of discussion to three sites, document; also, DBA was never sites to three. At this stage, the growing air service demands, but asked to provide informalJon about study should be disregarded, limits on the airports growth KTF was not meant to provide or present its proposed site. capability. specific detailed information on which to' base final decision. The WSA study should provide this information for decisions in spring of 2003. ~ ~m Will the HSR system be What haven't we asked you? plemented? Given huge budget shortfalls and deficits, can California reall~fford this? (No additional organizations or · Elected officials Who else should we talk to? Individuals identified) · Economic Development Corps. In Kern County and Central Valle_____y_y ~ What would you like to know from · How do other groups plan to · What do the groups think the the community groups on the contribute to the net local cost terminal site impacts will be? Interview list7 differentials associated with d fferent termina! sites? (How will What do we need to know more City does not belie~/~ a market What is Bakersfield going to get out --~at will the ridership profile for about to make this decision? study is needed---due to large of this? 0Nhat benefits does a HSR actually look like? This will uncertainties inherent to California -ISR terminal offer to the determine their need for roads and economy, and market research community that bears the burden?) other transportation facilities. (County would like to see a inadequacy, it would not add ddership study as part of this part significantly to the decision making of the process.) )rocess. How will the Truxtun Avenue site support the traffic volumes and parking needs associated with the HSR station? Other Issues Costs--what entity other than the · DBA would like the o Costs---local population does We are working on, and we need to City will help pay? opportunity to rebut some of the not support new taxes in any guise, ensure that the HSR selects the grapevine route, versus the assertions in the proposals for the ° Redevelopment, and other two sites and to clarify any associated tax increment funding ' Palmdale corridor. Otherwise we misconceptions other groups may assistance, is likely to be more will lose the opporhJnity for thousands of jobs and the have of DBA's vision for the Golden modest than projected by City opportunity for significant increases State site. in air service and affordability. · Note results of chareffe where community chose a HSR station lear the DBA site at Golden State/M Street. The charette site is Golden Slata at V St. · Need to consider what's best for Bakersfield as a whole. 11 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Table 3: Summary of Pros and Cons for Potential Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Sites Site I DBA C_o_unty . __ ' .... ........... Pros . "Tree" downtown site--functional and · If CHSRA chooses the BNSF alignment, then · If people are interested in Bakersfield · geographical centroid for Metropoli~n this site has possibilities. However, other as destination, this is best site (pedestrian Bakersfield locations along the BNSF might perform better, accessibility to sports, convention and · Offers greatest possibilities for intermodal · If UP alignment is chosen, there are no pros hotels) connections (Amtrak, bus, car, shuttle, for this site. · Could offer County Admin building pedestrian, bicycle) very convenient access to HSR and · Is the only site that supports a pedestrian Sacramento environment Supports iaffil development · ' Supports pdor and planned Supports cultural/downtown core users redevelopment work in and near urban core of HSR system · Suppods City and Vision2020 Potential for City to continue commilment to theme of bigger, beffer investment in CBD and create vibrant, downtown Bakersfield exciting environment for HSR users, with · Italian Plan makes this work walking-distance desfinations--emdes concern about circulation Cons . None identified · Added costs associated with "italian Plan" Physical space constraints may exist · An illogical choice with the (CHRSA will not pay increment beyond trunk line) at this site considerafion of millions of air · Site is physically constrained; may be difficult Incompatibility of 120 MPH trains travelers coming to to provide required grade separation and fencing through downtown, adjacent to residential Bakersfield for transfer to air for HSR Potentially higher cost of linking travel. 7+ miles of people · Site would require HSR to be elevated, ground transportation to airport (higher mover,rrransit systems, all of thereby increasing costs ROW costs) which are downtown. · Not likely to be fully intermodal; served by only Concern about ability of downtown one bus route and from the adjacent street. Site streets to handle infiux of new traffic does not appear adequate to incorporate major to/from terminal GET terminal. Unnecessarily requires commuter · Lacks a desired high-speed profile traffic to be routed through downtown · Offers lower potential for new development along with existing and growing and increased AV. downtown-destination traffic · Site is accessed by only one major road; Appropriateness of site depends on a proposed Centennial Corddor is not certain to be future with high-density living/working in built, and will be built post 2010. The only access downtown to the station is via Truxtun Avenue. If the Centennial Freeway is built, it is proposed to be elevated south of the BNSF. Look at the proposed configurations fo[ on/off ramps to the Q street underpass to Truxtun to the Amtrak stafion's S St. Entrance. These have changed with every proposed development so far along the California Avenue/BNSF corridor, and for ease of access, the route is at best convoluted. A facility of this magnitude should have mulUple access points. o Many potential noise impacts to local land uses, such as churches, schools, places of public assembly, court rooms, council chambers, library, hotel and BHS; potential costly' mitigations 12 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis ., wi .... Better surface transportation access to SR-99 ., Closer to downtown than 7~ Standard reoevelopmem and better arterial access than Truxtun Ave. site · Elevation of alignment not required; can be · This site can handle the scale of the constructed at grade project (more than just an "overgrown . Supports station site anywhere from F Street Amtrak station") · Fewer noise/vibration impacts due to to Old Town industrial character of adjacent land use · Will have positive air quality impact at Golden State site with proposed integration with · Suggestion to look at F intersection, local/regional transit and remote parking/shuttle where site acquisition might be easier (old Montgomery Ward site)--possible connections) · Minimal noise impacts due to industrial circulation benelits over the Golden State character or older cemmerdal adjacent uses and M site · Mom potential for redevelopment than Truxtun site Cons · Doesn't support pedestrian -~ Perception that the site is "not in downtown" · Potentially higher cost of linking -~ Again, a better choice environment Bakersfield ground transpodation to airport (higher than downtown, but still 4+ ROW costs) miles of transit to the airport with millions of travelers, sure · Lacks central access to probable · Lack of planned transportation corridor origin/destination points that Tmxtun to get people in and out. unless to muck the traffic flow and Ave. site offers Alternative 15 is built create air problems 13 Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Evaluation & Analysis Pros · None idenUfied · · Proximity to existing track i o Apdl 2005 date for completion of I bec, om nga major facility with perhaps alignments $88 M worth of infrastructure as many as a hundred or more daily · Easy access to Central Valley improvements are being flights with full size aircratt; and DBA · No disruption of established areas implemented {new terminal and does not see this as likely. A more downtown to get people to major runway; 7~h Standard Road probable future would be for BFL to freeways. Interchange, Roadway develop regional jet service to several · This site can handle the scale of improvements, Pacfive) hubs with perhaps 4-5 flights per hub the project (more than just an · Improves business environment daily, perhaps 25-30 daily flights. "overgrown Amtrak station") for Kern County and Bakersfield · Is In the center of existing/planned · Voila--the smart choice. Serves Investment, and thus not sprawl- the .airport and allows unimpeded inducing (conforms to Centers growth around the HSR terminal. Concept) Plan for the future. · Better intermodal connectivity than Tmxtun (99/airport) · New surface transpodation investment is ongoing · New airport and convenient HSR terminal could remove one major obstacle to local economic development; help attract higher- paying jobs · Improves the "Gateway" to the community CorIs · Airport demand and carder interest and · Airport demand and carrier interest · Centers notwithstanding, the site Is · commilment is too uncarfain is too uncertain "out in the middle of nowhere" and will · Airport is limited to one [unway and frequent · Though it is.compliant with the induce growth. fog closures Centers concept, it will tend to induce · Lack of supporting commercial and · Sprawl.inducing sprawl and disconUguous development service development · Lacks supporting commercial and service ° Depends on major new freeway · Airport is limited to one working development construction, i.e., beltway and SR-58 runway · Doesn't support a walking environment extension, for which no funding has o How will higher use of airport and been identified, and which may not be HSR terminal benefit Bakersfield? completed even within a 20 year · Shuffle service will still be horizon, necessary from the HSR terminal to the airport · Nothing to attract someone to the site, other than as a transportation hub · Denies downtown Bakersfield the "Gateway" opportunity Appendix B COMMUNITY/INTEREST GROUP INTERVIEW SUMMARY 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS I(ERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT,S Metropolitan Bakersfield HIGH. SPEED RAIL TERMINAL IMPACT ANALYSIS December 2002-February 2003 Community/Interest Group Interview Summary March 1'1, 2003 Prepared for Kern COG by: Deborah Hart Redman, Redman Consulting Project Consensus & Outreach Subconsultant to Wilbur Smith Associates I. Introduction This document summarizes the comments of representatives from eight Bakersfield area community groups, who were asked for their thoughts and concerns with respect to the three potential sites for the future Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal. Those sites are located at the Truxtun Avenue Amtrak Station, Golden State between F and M, and 7th Standard Road. As part of the "listening'' component in the overall effort to develop consensus for a High Speed Rail terminal site in the Bakersfield area, this task followed the initial public consensus task, which was to conduct in-depth interviews with the three primary stakeholders (the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern and Downtown Business Association). The community groups (identified by the study Technical Advisory Committee) were interviewed in late 2002 to early 2003 and included those in the table below. Table 1: Community and Interest Group Participants in HSR Terminal Sitinq Consensus Efforts Group Attendees ' D'ate Location" Greater Bakersfield Chris Frank February 19, 2003 Telephone Interview Chamber of Commerce Golden Empire Chester Moland December 10, GET offices, Bakersfield Transit CherYl Scott 2003 Emery Rendes Golden Empire Larry Wiggins February 18, 2003 Kern COG Conference Room Division of Arin Resnicke American Institute Mary Bogacki of. Architecture Joe Covington Jeffrey Kra.usse Dave Cross Graham Kaye-Eddi,e' David Milazzo Tim Stromont : 'Hispanic Chamber Lou Gomez January 23, 2004 Telephone Interview of Commerce Kern Regional Linda Wilbanks December 18, Telephone Interview Transit Pat Ebel 2002 Kern Transpor[ation Gary Blackburn, February 20, 2003 Telephone Interview Foundation President Project Clean Air Herman Ruddell December 10, Kern County Offices, Chester Linda Wilbanks 2002 Ave., Bakersfield Craig Huff Linda Urata Smart Growth Paula Larwood February 19, 2003 Telephone Interview Coalition Groups were questioned about their members views on the overall vision for Metropolitan Bakersfield, any preferences or concerns with respect to any of the three potential HSR terminal sites, and asked to provide insight into their group-Specific goals and objectives that would provide insight into those preferences. Questioning varied from group to group, based on the interest, knowledge and specific area of expertise of group members present.' The Smart Growth Coalition, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce offered to use an "email blast" to alert their members to the public open house(s) that will complete the public consensus effort in March/April 2003. II. Summary Matrix ot c;ommunl[y uup 7'" StandardRoad Site '- Group Vision for Metro Main Concerns and Truxtun Avenue Site I Golden State Site Bakei$~eld General Observations (Pros/Cons/Observations) (Pros/Cons/Observations) (Pros/Cons/Observations)_ Greater · Support for - Most members would be · No official position at this time; their · No official position at this time; their - No offi~';ial position at this Bakersfield continued concerned about cost. membership is studying the issue membership is studying ~he issue time; their membership is Chamber of development within · Everyone needs to be separately, and has not made a separately, and have not made studying the issue separately, Commerce the heart of the flexible to ensure determination, determination and have not made community Bakersfield gets best · Basically, the HSR should come into determination (downtown). project, the populated area; into the heart of the community; strong coalition around that idea. Hispanic · N/A · Members focused on · Some preference for the Amtrak site, · No opinion expressed on this site. · Believes the 7th standard Chamber of business-related issues of because it is centrally located with ample site is out. Commerce immediate concern; group parking. has not tracked this issue Golden · The location of the · To ensure survival of ·Majodty straw vote supportJ'strong · Golden State is not considered part of · 7m Standard road has high Empire HSR terminal will, Bakersfield vs. Oildale support for Truxtun site (7 of 9). Support "downtown"' but represents best impact on valuable farmland Division of itself, determine the · To grow the grew after the discussion among compromise site · Difficult to see logical American future of Bakersfield entertainment, convention members. · Golden State needs redevelopment; connection between potential Institute of ("if they build it they and hospital industry in · Truxtun is higheslJbest use, has best utilizes Golden State Hwy and direct air traffic and HSR site Architecture will come") downtown infrastructuro outfall trunk line; 30 in. access to fyws · No difference between a · Bakersfield needs · Most attention should be sewer line, four best water wells in town, · To determine "true" downtown, use two mile and 4 mile tdp from an update to its on needs of passengers largest hotel, Convention Center, market or sale pdce value of square foot; HSR to airport vision plan for who are actually visiting sports/entertainment development this would exclude Golden State; · 7th Standard road site is downtown Bakersfield, not just passing underway however that means land is affordable to surrounded by folks with large · "Do we want to through · Some concern about how much land construct HSR terminal houses who do say "not in my make it easier for · 2020 Plan includes large was available to further develop · Golden State site could be developed back yard" people to get into investment for east/west hotel/convention uses near Amtrak with interesting pedestrian environment · Locating HSR terminal here town or out of town?" freeways to both Golden station; others saw no problem with that directed toward entertainment core of will promote Pumpkin Center · Fresno was similar~ State and Truxtun · Truxtun has access, to Amtrak and city, like Hanford and Oildale image of to Bakersfield 20 · There is no significant Union Ave, and then to fyws. Bakersfield years ago, but had downtown congestion or · One strong opponent of Truxtun Ave · "Devil's Advocate" support higher growth-- parking shortage currently; site as unrealistic due to major for 7th Standard with people- represents potential more problems stem from modification of infrastructure required; mover connection to airport, future scenario, sprawl than density · Parking structure would not be major noting, however, the farmland · One proponent for · Commute traffic will visual impact impact a "Visalia~ present a problem no · Truxtun Ave can take advantage of downtown--get matter which site is chosen; three redevelopment project areas' tax Centennial Fwy and however toudst trade traffic increment financing high-tech rail out of can be minimized with · Construction impacts could be endured downtown area; go downtown site and would likely be seen as sign of for total pedestrian · City has become healthy economic growth--actually environment w/tree east/west community; used welcomed by area residents/workers canopy to be north/south (Chester- · Truxtun Ave aroa landowners are NOT · Make Bakersfield ddven) NIMBY--they want it groat for residents, · Concern about NIMBY · Bdnging people into downtown area and financed by non- reactions from residents at will allow Bakersfield image to change residents any site (vibration impacts) · Makes sense from Greenfields- Brownfields perspective · Visual impact no greater than elevated freeway G--~oup Vision for Metro Main Concerns and General Truxtun Avenue Site Golden State Site 7~" Standard Road Site Bakersfield Observations (Pros/Cons/Observations) (Pros/Cons/Observations) (Pros/Cons/Observations) Go--'-Iden · More compact, · GET would like a site that minimizes · No strong feeling on · No strong feeling on difference - There would have to be Empire dense development, impacts on current routes, difference between this site between this site and Truxtun (both are high level of connectivity with Transit more infill; more infrastructure and Golden State (both are "downtown") this site to downtown'core acceptable, transit- - KTF study was conducted at a very "downtown") · GET will serve any route selected (take - What are ridership profiles friendly development general level; should not be relied upon · General (soft) Preference GET service out of the decision) of HSR? Is Bakersfield a · Smart Growth at this point for centrally located site feeder airport, or destination? · Fewer walled-in. · Smart Growth means a lot of because .of existing routes - GET will serve any route cul-de sacs different things to different people - GET will serve any route selected (take GET service · More turnouts · Perception that sprawl is "what the selected with appropriate level out of the decision) · Continuous consumer wants" of service (take GET service · If HSR rail goes in at development (no - Given fare structures, HSR might nol out of the decision) airpod, GET would have to leap-frogging) lead to growth inducement provide service, or watch · Less sprawl - Need for details on ridership study another entity provide that for HSR service · Need for transit/multi-modal - There are 40-50,000 interconnectivity .. houses already planned for · HSR will be key generator this area, so it will be within Choose site that maximizes high- the city limits by time the HSRi quality jobs, economic development is built · Needs to have sufficient space for all different modes · Consider baggage handling needs Kern · KRT's focus is to · Physical constraints of site are · Really no preference. KRT · Will work to make any choice operate · Will work to make any Regional get people from primary concern. KRT likes to serve would provide transit to well. choice operate well Transit outlying areas in the sites with easy access. Ddvers support whatever site needs · Slight preference for 7th Standard or · Slight preference for 7th county into struggle where it's hard to get in and support. Golden State site, due to N/S circulation Standard or Golden State site Bakersfield out of stops safely. · It's crowded downtown issues. If downtown can be shown to due to N/S circulation issues. · No specific "vision" = Dedicated bus lane at either site already. There are issues of work, then that preference is moot. If downtown can be shown to for the metro area; would work to accomplish safe north/south movement · Golden State has less development work, then that preference is however they are ingress/egress, constraints through around it; maybe easier to access, moot part of the County - Easy Access and Safety of buses downtown. govt. structure getting into terminal site and moving · Curren{ stop is on Chester back into roadway; site distance for (N/S) and that is problematic. cars (to avoid conflicts with slow- · moving buses) · . Most KRT buses go to the downtown transit stop already (GET) on Chester. Many go to Amtrak station (scheduled or on request). · KRT is looking for the study to guide Bakersfield to best decision. Kern Trans- · Economic vitality · Costs No strong preference (KTF · No strong preference · No strong preference (KTF portation of area · Traffic impacts did not identify one over · (KTF did not identify one over another did not Identity one over Foundation · Livability. - COnvenience to users and another of the sites selected of the sites selected for final review) another of the sites selected · Protection of community for final review) for final review) _ agricultural uses . . Group Vision for Metro Main Concerns and General Truxtun Avenue Site Golden State Site -~m Standard Road Site Bakersfield Observations (Pros/Cons/Observations) (Pros/Cons/Observations) (Pros/Cons/Observations) Project · Motto "See the · How to leverage HSR to maximize - Participants were unclear · Has most potential for new · After Sept 11, Bak~;rsfield Clean Air Mountains" gain in local air quality how community pool work development, increased assessed lost 48% of air service; now · Wants more · Must address alt fuels and how would be compatible with valuation and tax increment funding American Eagle is gone; neighborhoods with people are accessing stations adjacent HSR station · Be prepared for CHSRA decision by United filed for bankruptcy. trees, parks, peal and · Rail must be convenient to people · Truxtun is more constrained having contingency for both Golden State Flux in air service makes transit access - Need park and ride facilities to for new development and Truxtun future air scenarios · Clean air, walkable support terminal traffic · Be prepared for CHSRA · Potential to relocate Old Town Kern problematic. cities, transit and · System should at least consider decision by having railroad station to Golden State site, and - It might make more sense bike-friendly freight and increased goods contingency for both Golden incorporate as new station; alternatively, to get on HSR in Bakersfield · Cost effective movements needs State and Truxtun the station site itself could slide toward and access airports in Fresno service and · Bring system into town where it can · Need to address shortfalls the old station or Visalia, or even SFO or infrastructure to travel at 150 mph, not just 70 or 80 of Truxtun Ave relative to LAX communities - Station must be fully intermodal, CHSRA Cdteda (potential of · There's a good argument · Concern about including future light rail reduced speed requirements for connecting the HSR to the sprawl - Cost considerations are important due to geometdcs on the thereairp°rt' but not locating it · Design for · Siting must consider different HSR BNSF alignment) · One commenter originally intermodal user categories and their needs favored Airport site because transportation and 01: Free Trade Zone, but may clean communities not be relevant if HSR doesn't carry goods Smart - Clean air · Area is getting too much sprawl; not · Downtown site works best · No strong opinion · Sprawl is more of a proble,. Growth · Save the fahnland conducive to transit to avoid widening the footprint with this site, as promotes Coalition of · More efficient land - City and County need to coordinate of the city leapfrog development Kern use, heallhy and land use planning and control the · No strong opinion, however County vibrant downtown juxtaposition of incompatible uses · Avoid fleeing to outskirts of town Appendix C COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE - PUBLIC COMMENTS 386110 BAKERSFIELD HSR TERMINAL ANALYSIS KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Metropolitan Bakersfield HIGH SPEED RAIL TERMINAL EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS April 2003 Community Open House Summary of Public Comments Review Draft April 29, 2003 Prepared for Kern COG by: Deborah Hart Redman, Redman Consulting Project Consensus & Outreach Subconsultant to Wilbur Smith Associates I. Introduction This report summarizes comments received by the public resulting from the. April 22, 2003 Community Open House, held at the Bakersfield Convention Center (Truxtun Room) from 3 pm to 7:30 pm. There were two primary goals of the event. First, the Open House was intended to inform the public about the results of a technical evaluation of the pros and cons of three locations under consideration as potential sites for the future California High Speed Rail terminal in Bakersfield, connecting Bakersfield to Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento via a statewide high speed rail network Second, the event sought public input--community issues, concerns and priorities--in order to develop a community and stakeholder consensus for choosing one of the three sites identified below: · Truxtun Avenue and S/Union Street (near the Amtrak Station) · Golden State and M Street (evaluation considered Golden at M through F Street) · 7th Standard Road West (2-miles from Meadows Field Airport) Notice of the Open House, was provided through a press release and flyer (attached at the end of this report). The press release was sent to approximately 61 media contacts throughout Kern County on April 15, 2003. The workshop flier was distributed to the Kern COG Quarterly mailing list on April 15, 2003, which includes approximately 1000 individuals. A display ad was also purchased and featured in the Bakersfield Californian on April 20, 2003. Additionally, Kern COG Executive Director Ronald Brummett spoke with KERN radio 1410 on April 15, 2003, regarding the draft high-speed rail station terminal location analysis, shortly after staff distributed the press release announcing draft study results and the April 22 public outreach event. Mr. Brummett was interviewed on the subjects of the study as well as the Open House by several local television stations, including Channel 29 and Channel 23. City of Bakersfield Vice-Mayor and Kern COG Board Member David Couch were also interviewed by Channel 17 prior to the Kern COG Board Meeting on April 17, 2003. To supplement formal means of publicizing the event, the press release was provided to interested community organizations (Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Smart Growth Coalition and Kern Transportation Foundation) to inform their .respective membership. Approximately 33 people attended the Open House. In addition to members of the interested public, a number of project stakeholders were also present, including those from the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern (Kern Regional Transit), the Department of Airports, the Downtown Business Association' and the 'California High Speed Rail Authority. A dozen copies of the draft Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Impact Analysis were available at tables for review by the public. Additionally, Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) staff committed to providing the document on the Kern COG website for further study by interested community members. Spanish translation was available, through Kern COG bi-lingual technical staff present, though it was not utilized during the event. Site diagrams and alternative scenarios were posted on the walls to depict possible site plans at the three candidate locations, as were three summary sheets bullet-pointing the primary pros and cons for each of the respective site, so far revealed by the study. Kern COG and consultant staff was available to provide additional explanation and to answer questions about the project as well as the process of review and selection of a locally preferred alternative. Kern Council of Governments staff responds to audience questions at the April 22, 2003 Open House. At 4 pm, the technical consultant presented a 15 minute slide review of issues related to the three sites, identified for reference, below: Following the presentation, the consultant team and Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG/staff took audience questions. Discussion among those present continued for approximately 45 minutes. Among topics of concern to those present were the accuracy and completeness of estimates of future passenger demand at Meadows Field, the uncertainties regarding the high speed rail route departing south from Bakersfield (Tehachapi vs. Grapevine) and the associated uncertainties with respect to the rail line itself (UP vs. BNSF) and concomitant cost implications. A number of those present resonated to an observation that, given these uncertainties, requiring a community consensus on one site was "putting the cart before the horse." Others pointed out that there is always a set of unknowns, and that Bakersfield should assess the situation as best it can, and select what's best for the city, its residents and the operation of the high speed rail system itself. 2 Members of the public review copies of the draft' Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Rail Terminal Impact Analysis, and provide written comments, (April 22, 2003) In reviewing the 45 written comments below, it is important to remember that this group of respondents is self-selected, and does not necessarily represent the average demographic for the general public or the voting public within Metropolitan Bakersfield. However, review of the comments can provide insight into the reasons for the variety of views likely to be held by larger groups of people working, living and traveling in Bakersfield. That is, though the comments cannot be used to predict the strength of public support for any given strategy, they can provide an understanding into the factors that would likely garner such support. It should also be noted that among the comments received were approximately 27 from Taft, which appear to be the result of an organized effort to provide public input, as many of the specific comments provided are identical, or nearly so. Nonetheless, these responses, all favoring the 7th Standard Road site, are part of public input--they should neither be over- nor undervalued. Themes that threaded through many respondents' written summaries (including those with differing site preferences) were pride in Bakersfield, the potential of the terminal to serve as a gateway, the need for economic revitalization, the desire to avoid sprawl and preserve farmland, and the need to minimize traffic congestion and conflicts with non-HSR traffic patterns near the terminal. Written responses also echoed the concern of oral comments on April 22, expressing concern about a lack of sufficient information (cost, route, airport demand among other unknowns) to provide a sound basis for site selection. 3 Table 1: Summary Matrix of Written Responses Received from Members of the Public Concerning Proposed Bakersfield High ;[:ccd Rail Terminal Sites Now Under Study Respondent Name How do you see the Future of Metropolitan Favor Truxtun Favor Golden State Favor 7~" Standard Residence/Work Bakersfield Location Commute Mode Bogacki/ I think Truxtun is a better site. Downtown Bakersfield This would facilitate a Bakersfield is re-establishing itself. We should offer people a revitalization to the downtown Car means to have direct access to events cultural and area. I believe having the otherwise that Bakersfield. is creating, terminal downtown where activities occur makes sense. If it is placed at 7th Standard, bus and car continuation to the areas of downtown would be necessary Anon Growing. Continued Growth Taft/Taft Car Penny? Brewton Promising and exciting. The population is growing X (No additional comment) Taft/Taft and the cultural opportunities have increased. We Car need to support rapid transit and airport expansion Pat Ebel Comment: I would like to see a chart indicating the N/A N/A N/A estimated costs to construct "off-line" track to each station site. Also, FYI, the County has projects (in design and the funding stream identified) to construct a new over crossing over SR 99 at 7~h Standard Road; a grade separation at UPI:IR tracks and widening of the existing roadway to 4 lanes from Santa Fe Way to the new Meadows Field terminal. The estimated cost of these upgrades to 7~ Standard Road is $37 M. Table (drawn) "Offline Costs" lruxtun $ $ Golden State $ $ 7'" Standard $ $ Jeff & Lynn Krause I see the revitalization of downtown as the most Downtown station is a gateway to Bakersfield/Bakersfield important issue for the future reduction of sprawl, downtown Bakersfield, entry College Increase in density destination is most important Car/Walk (cultural activities, conventions, restaurant, etc.) exiting Bakersfield by residents is not as important as arriving visitors to Bakersfield. Anon There is a positive view for the future of Bakersfield. It Airport area allows for strategic Bakersfield/Bakersfield is time for a structured plan in the Northwest Area. plan to help grow the project and will also stimulate businesses Car surrounding the area. It also allows for more parking, easier commutes with less traffic and a larger area for growth. 4 Respondent Name How do you see the Future of Metropolitan Favor Truxtun Favor Golden State Favor 7~ Standard Residence/Work Bakersfield Location Commute Mode Miguel Castellanos I hope to see a more dynamic environment, more I would like to see a more vibrant Bakersfield/Bakersfield pedestrian fdendly cimulation, more (and efficient) and active downtown. I believe Car public transportation, and less intrusion of vehicular that bringing the station to the transit Downtown area would benefit surroundings economically as well as socially, with the interaction of more people and the creation of appropriate public spaces. Ed Hewitt Downtown parking to be revised for station Golden State is most favorable Bakersfield to me because in my opinion it Car should be centered and convenience to freeways is important. Joseph W. Covington Planned growth would be nice. Major arterials [depends on design of [depends on design of [depends on design of Bakersfield/Bakersfield developed before development. Downtown terminal/line; more information terminal/line; more information terminal/line; more information Car redevelopment. East side growth---less as land needed] needed] needed] destroyed.) LA Bedroom community with development of HSR. John Cohrs Retaining the "small town" character will developing an I favor Truxtun Ave. site as most Bakersfield exciting and vibrant downtown and core; establishing acceptable because of the Car methods to reduce poor air quality and sprawl, current land use compatibility, and because of the potential for ancillary development. The Truxtun Ave. site would be a boost in reducing environmental concerns (Air quality from increased traffic, farmland reduction, sprawl, etc.) Warren Minner Growth and more growth. Will become the best first Truxtun Ave--Central location. Bakersfield ' class city in California. Car Ray Bishop Note the contract (I wrote) from City County /Meadows Field specifically required examination of the impacts of Los Angeles Reverse Leakage. Page 1-1 assumes away this responsibility and gives it to SCAG transportation study. (I sit on this group as well.) But study want to ready for several years--the contract requires an examination and excursion of Los Angeles Air Services Impacts. Bob Campbell Hope we can reduce vehicular pollution so people can .. Bakersfield · have healthy existence--spend money on better traffic Metrolink or car management rather than Centennial Plaza enlargement for swim pool, ice rink, etc. We have poorest air in nation and blame others. Respondent Name How do you see the Future of Metropolitan Favor Truxtun Favor Golden State Favor 7~" Standard Residence/Work Bakersfield Location. Commute Mode Marvin Davisson Clearly cost is least and Golden state meets primary Golden State--I see no Bakersfield standards. Golden State provides easy access from advantage to airport location Car Hwy. 99 to the west and for traffic from the east as and distance from population well as bus traffic from Greyhound, Airport Best? Of center is problematic. The Bakersfield and Trailways. The area is ripe for downtown location may hotel/motel development and [illegible] housing is interfere with planned [illegible] nearby, recreation and retail development, creating congestion and traffic problems. Brian Landis With its vine-like expansion outward, especially to the I believe a downtown location (close second) Bakersfield/100110t~ St. east and west, it's very important to keep the rOOt of it using existing hotels, roads, etc. Car all, downtown, healthy, vital and in touch with the will boost Bakersfield's economy needs of the entire city. A downtown location, I feel, and improve the downtown's would best serve the entire city. vitality. To stick [it] out by 7~h Standard is to have a destination to nowhere. The Amtrak Truxtun or Golden State sites will best serve our city overall. Perhaps the Golden State site can be the' center of a revitalization a la downtown? Paul Gable 7~ Standard Road~Potential for Tehachapi/Retired future development is the best Car Anon Larger X (No additional comment Bakersfield/Downtown provided.) Car Anon Need to address uncertainty factor in airports [no preferred site identified by respondent1 Susie L Mears The future of Metropolitan Bakersfield is bright; Taft however we should plan so that if won't be congested Car Anon I see less gridlock and congestion happening if we Plenty of space for development Taft/Bakersfield look at the high speed rail being developed in the and allow growth of new Car Northwest area, not downtown businesses. Airport access and highway access of utmost importance. Don't add congestion to the' downtown area. Anon Make use of outlying space vs. creating gridlock 7'" Standard Rd.--Access and Bakersfield/Rosedale downtown. 7th Standard Road provides greatest development of new airport terminal ease downtown Car opportunity congestion. Master Plan 7~h Standard Rd. area. Anon Thinking Ubig" in looking for more land to develop and Input to develop out near airport. Bakersfield/Rosedale not jam the downtown area. Parking essential, good develop (sic) Develop businesses Car around airport 6 Respondent Name How do you see the Future of Metropolitan Favor Truxtun Favor Golden State Favor 7"~ Standard Residence/Work BakerSfield Location Commute Mode Mary Beth Rynan Looking for areas of expansion where there is land The expansion of our Airport NorthWestJRosedale available--The congestion in the Golden State and should tie in with the High Speed Car Truxtun are would only advance the problem now Rail in order to improve the there, overall congestion and success of our transportation system. The less populated area will allow the expansion of the freeway system. Gridlock in the Golden State and Truxtun area could be a problem. Use of the land around the 7th Standard Rd. could work with a Masterplan to build on. N.G. Sawyer Great growth opportunities. We just need proper 7t" Standard offers best chance Bakersfield/Bakersfield planning, to manage the project's impacts, Car including traffic and business infitl. Also, 7th Standard has easy I-5 access and would allow ample parking. Anon Large growth, other Counties in the area will grow also. TaftJBakersfield Car Anon Bright--But we have to think large right now to allow Synergy with New Airport Taft/Bakersfield for growth not to negatively affect our projects Terminal Open--think big. Car success, parking access to Interstate. New Area to develop well the first time. Room to grow and take LAX overflow. Also allows Industry to grow around the Airport. No congestion on side streets as it will be master planned off of 7th Standard & 99. Lee Smith Very positive--good growth. As usual with any city X (No additional comment) with fast growth---come traffic problems. John J. Miller Very good X (No additional comment) Taft/Bakersfield Car Lawrence (illegible) Needs room to grow to west on 7tn Std. Road X (No additional comment) Bakersfield Car Dave Lefler More growth and jobs. We need rapid transit. X (No additional comment) Taft/Taft Car R.D, Andrews X (No additional comment) Taft/Taft Car Pam Jones Bakersfield is finally catching up w/metro cities to the X (No additional comment) Taft/WCC North and South. I wouldlike to see the expansion of Car the BFL airport to better serve our growing airport 7 Respondent Name How do you see the Future of Metropolitan Favor Truxtun Favor Golden State Favor 7'" Standard Residence/Work Bakersfield Location Commute Mode X (No additional comment) Roe Damell Growing and moving west Taft/Taft Car X (No additional comment) Anon Good \ X (No additional comment) Anon Taft/Taft Car X (No additional comment) Anon Taft/Taft X This allows no congestion vs. Anon inside downtown. Taft/College Car X (No additional comment) Louise Hudgens Downtown area already congested. Why would you Taft/Taft want to add more? 7th standard Rd. area less Car congested and more room to expand. New Airport Terminal makes Mary Garner What--We have to think big enough now to most sense for growth Taft/Taft accommodate the future. Car X (No additional comment) Randy Miller Good--Quality of life, home affordability, weather, Taft/Taft traffic, services Car X (No additional comment) Anon I would like to (sic) High Speed Rail by the airport with Bakersfield/Taft connections to the airport and into town. Something like the cablecar/SD. Red Line ideas. Something different that can. be an area icon means of transportation X (No additional comment) Anon Looking Good!l!! Make sure we plan ahead for our Taft/Bakersfield future. Car X (No additional comment) Anon Taft/Taft Car X (No additional comment) Isaac George We need to limit the extent of growth. Need to Taft/taft coordinate a place of growth involving other cities in Car Kern County. Tax sharing/revenue sharing could work. The 7m Standard would meet the Roland Maier The metropolitan area will continue to grow outward needs of the transportation Taft/Jefferson School very quickly to east and west! There is a 'huge" need availability form I-5 the best Car for a 58 freeway to I-5 to help alleviate the congestion without [illegible] to replace in the northwest, homes and not have to have the freeway way above the ground, I feel that will be a central area for transportation hubs and growth where the other locations are very inflexible! 8 PRESS RELEASE FOR APRIL 22, 2003 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE April 15, 2003 KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SEEKS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN HIGH-SPEED RAIL TERMINAL DECISION For more information, please contact Ron Brummett or Jason Hade at (661) 861-2191 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Organization: Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) What: High-Speed Rail Study Workshop When: 3-7:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 22, 2003 Where: Truxtun Room, Bakersfield Convention Center, 1001Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kern Council of Governments will host a public workshop Tuesday to unveil the results of a technical evaluation of three potential sites for a high-speed rail terminal in metropolitan Bakersfield. The workshop, from 3-7:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 22 at the Bakersfield Convention Center, will give area residents the opportunity to compare the merits of each site and offer comments on where the terminal should be located. Study sites include: Truxtun Avenue and "S"/Union Street (near the Amtrak Station); Golden State and "M" Street; and 7th Standard Road West of State Route 99 (two miles from Meadows Field Airport). Kern COG is sponsoring the workshOp to foster community consensus for one the three sites, which will then be forwarded to the California High-Speed Rail Authority for consideration. This workshop is part of a larger technical examinination of the benefits and impacts associated with locating a high-speed rail terminal in Bakersfield. The Kern COG-led study, which began in November 2002, included input from representatives of the city and county, the Bakersfield Downtown Business Association, and Golden Empire Transit District on its advisory committee. Previous public outreach efforts, from December 9 2002 through February 2003, have focused on stakeholder agencies and community organizations, and have involved one-on-one interviews and small group discussions. Summaries of these activities are included in the draft report that will be available at the April 22 event. Public participation is strongly encouraged so that Bakersfield may determine the best high-speed rail terminal alternative based on a variety of factors, including technical, political and financial performance indicators, as well as issues pertaining to urban form and community values. A final report is scheduled to go to the Kern COG Board of Directors on May 15, 2003. The final report may also be reviewed by local decision-makers at an upcoming joint meeting between the Kern County Board of Supervisors and Bakersfield City Council. Additional public comment can be provided at that time. Final high-speed rail terminal site recommendations for Metropolitan Bakersfield will then be forwarded to the California High,Speed Rail Authority for inclusion in the statewide draft program EIR/EIS and further consideration. 10 KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WORKSHOP High-Speed Rail Terminal Location Truxtun Avenue & S/Union (Amtrak Station) or Golden State Avenue and M Street or 7th Standard Road near Meadows Field ~ Tuesday, April 22, 2003 3 to 7:30 p.m. at the Bakersfield Convention Center, Truxtun .Room ~ 1001 Truxtun Avenue in Bakersfield This workshop is being hosted to unveil the results of a technical evaluation that studied three' potential sites for a high-speed rail terminal in metropolitan Bakersfield. The workshop will cover the following areas: Benefits and impacts of each site Study purpose and scope Public CommentYQue stions Next Steps 11 · ~ ,~u~ ~.1 03 12:07p BakersFieId S.P.C.R SS13230949 p.1 TO: Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager cc. Trudy Slater Administrative Analyst III From: Robert Strawser Director, SPCA Please find the following response to proposed contract amendment. ~' RECE'rVED: §/1'1/O3 I =14PM; ->CTTY OF BAKERSFTELD; #953; PAGE 2 ;:~u~ll 03 l:~:O?p BakersField S.P.C.R 6613~30949 p.2 BAKERSFIELD SIr_A June 11, 2003 Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager City of. Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA. 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy, Per our conversation on June 10, 2003 I have approached the Board of Directors concerning our present impasse in contract negotiations. I have, as we discussed, proposed to the board the possibility of a 6-month contract under the terms of the 2003- 2004 proposal minus language concerning a $50,000 reduction and including agreed upon amendments to specified paragraphs. The Board of Directors however did not agree with that proposal and maintains its desires to first and foremost establish a two- year contract under the original proposal minus language concerning a $50,000 reduction and including agreed upon amendments to specified paragraphs. Insofar as the Board desires a two year contract, it did however concede, that if agreement on the two-year contract could not be negotiated, it would consider a 6-month extension under the terms of the current contract or something within the realm. Thank you for you indulgence and understand that we continue to strive for resolve in this matter. Please contact me with you thoughts, opinions, or options. Sincerely, Robert S. Strawser Executive Director Pet Adoption Center' 3000 Gibson Street - Bakemfield, CA 93308 - (661) 323-8353 - Fax (661) 323-0949 Animal Control Shelter: 3000 Gibson Street - Bakemfield, CA 93308 www. baker~fieldspca.o~ TRUDY SLATER ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST BAKERSFIELD Alan land¥ ° City Manager June 91 2003 Robert S. Strawser Executive Director, SPCA 3000 Gibson Street Bakersfield, CA 93308 Dear Mr. Strawser; I have received your letter of June 5, 2003 concerning the SPCA's position on Contract provisions for animal control services. Let me attempt to provide some information which may be of help to you and your Board in their deliberations. First, the $50,000 potential decrease is only a contingency provision. If, and only if, the State Legislature takes a substantial amount of money from the City in its budget deliberations would the provision be enacted. The same type of reduction would be imposed simultaneously on all City departments. In case you are unaware, to deal with the current financial crisis, the City has eliminated 160 part-time and temporary positions. We have eliminated from .the budget for next year 50 full-time permanent positions. The Police Department is currently down 13 sworn positions. The average City department for next fiscal year has absorbed inflation, growth of the City, increased pension and labor costs and has still reduced their budgets by an average of around 10%. Similar to the proposed contract provision in the SPCA agreement, any cuts from the State Legislation will further compound those numbers. It may be of interest to you that the contingency plan on the State cuts includes a 40% reduction to the school crossing guard program and elimination of all financial support to the Bakersfield Symphony and Museum of Art. Lobbying the State to avoid these potential cuts jointly with us would be an appropriate action. None of the above severe reductions are anything any of us want to do. All of them call upon City departments and agencies with whom we contract to work harder, do more with substantially less, and to rise to the challenge of a difficult time throughout California. The City has treated the SPCA very well over the years - a $450,000 grant City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office ° 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California ° 93301 (661) 326-3751 ° Fax (661) 324-1850 Mr~ Robert*Strawser - SPCA June 9, 2003 Page 2 to expand and improve your building, an animal control truck-and 'surplus vehicle, and most recently seven computers. Additionally, the SPCA was given an 8.76% increase January 31, 2001, a 14.36% increase June 5, 2001, and a 9.68% increase June 12, 2002. We are now in a crisis, which will potentially deepen with potential actions of the Legislature. The proposed contract language treats the SPCA no worse, if not better, than all City departments. It treats you better than several other agencies with whom the City contracts for valuable serviceS. I urge you to reconsider, sign the document as last proposed and to have you join us in lobbying efforts to help avoid the need for the contingent budget plan. In time the Statewide financial crisis will get better and we will be able to resume a more normal relationship. Thank you in advance. City Manager / cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst JUN - 5 2003 CITY' MANAGER'S June 5, 2003 Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA. 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy In response to your letter dated June 3, 2003 concerning the amendment to paragraph 4, and newly recommended amendments to paragraphs 13 and 33, the Bakersfield SPCA submits that it is unable to accept the proposed changes. Of particular concern are the suggested changes to paragraphs 13 and 33, which would allow a further $50,000 decrease in the budget. Given the size of the city population and its alarming need for animal control, the SPCA does not view further reductions to the Cities Animal Control budget as conducive to a sound or professional public safety program. As such, any degradation to this program reflects directly upon the SPCA and would thus be non-facilitative to our image. In reference to paragraph 4, Emergency Pick Up, and as discussed before, the allocated budget for the after hour Emergency Pick-Up or Response Program does not carry sufficient funding to allow for the response to non-emergency pick-up of stray animals as requested by the general population. The SPCA would consider however, accepting the Cities wording of paragraph 4, Emergency Pick Up, provided the City were amenable to increasing the animal control overtime budget by 200% or $34,560.00. We regret that there continues to exist between the parties issues that slow the process. However, we remain confident in finding a resolution to these roadblocks. If there are any questions please contact me at (661) 323-8353. Sincerely, Executive Director Pet Adoption Center, 3000 Gibson Street - Bakersfield, CA 93308 - (661)3Z3-8353 - F~ (661)3Z3-0949 Animal Control Shelter, 3000 Gibson Street - Bakersfield, CA 93308 B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM June 6, 2003 TO: City Manager Alan Tandy Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst III '~-~ ~ FROM: SUBJECT: SPCA Contract On June 5, 2003, the City received a reply from the SPCA regarding the City's latest proposals for an animal control agreement with the SPCA (June 3, 2005). The letter was hand delivered by Mr. Robert Strawser, SPCA Executive Director. The letter indicated that the SPCA would not accept the City's proposed language that "SOCIETY has read and understands the possibility of resource reductions as set forth in this Agreement" or "At the time this contract is signed, significant unknowns to the CITY's budget exist. Should the CITY experience substantial negative budgetary impacts, it reserves the right to reduce the yearly contract amount by $50,000. Should this contingency occur, CITY will work with SOIETY to effectuate the budget reduction in such a way as to have the least negative budgetary impact possible upon the SOCI ETY." Additionally, the letter rejected the City's proposal to remain with the language within the currently existing contract relating to emergency pick-up. Current language indicates "SOCIETY agrees to maintain emergency pick-up service twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days a week for, and to pick up sick, injured, dead or stray animals at the request of any resident, police officer or public official of CITY. Emergency pick-up services for dead animals after business hours shall be limited to those constituting public hazards." SPCA proposals indicate the desire to eliminate picking up strays from any resident. Mr. Strawser indicated to me unless the language regarding the $50,000 contingency reduction is removed, the SOCIETY is willing to "walk" away' from providing animal control services for the City. The indication was that negotiations could conceivably continue on the emergency pick-up clause. Alan Tandy Page 2 June 6, 2003 City staff began discussions with the SPCA about a new agreement prior to January 2003 and had indicated to the SPCA that the City was facing stringent fiscal constraints and that increases in agreement amounts would be unlikely. The first budget proposal received from the SPCA (Feb. 21,2003) was a request for a $968,169 contract amount, an increase of $288,948 over the existing amobnt (a'42.54% increase). A request for a "Phase I, II, and II1" was requested from the SPCA as it was for City Departments. Subsequent submittals resulted in an SPCA proposal in April 2003 of $614,430. City staff felt this was a "good faith" effort and recommended acceptance~ The amount of $614,430 was a reduction from the latest City-agreed upon annual payment of $679,221 (a 9.5% reduction). It should be noted that in addition to the contract amount, the SPCA receives funds from fees and fines to help defray the costs of providing animal control services. Contract negotiations between the SPCA and City staff continued on outstanding issues beyond the contract amount. Hi(~hli(~hts of those negotiations resulted in agreement regarding the following: a) SPCA to patrol the streets and public ways of the City at least five days each week during normal workinq hours instead of six days during davlkTht hours. b) SPCA to, .through reasonable and good faith efforts, to pick up and impound . vicious~ in/ured, sick, confined or non-confined stray animals instead of to pick up and impound stray animals and to pick up and impound any animal c) Contract to be for two years instead the proposed five years. Although staff had indicated to Mr. Strawser the contingency possibility of reducing the contract by $50,000, and that he would be receiving something to that effect in writing, that language had not been added to the contract until the staff proposal to the SPCA of June 3, 2005. During 2002, the City provided the SPCA with the last of 'ten annual payments of $45,000 (total of $450,000) to help them with the construction of their facility at 3000 Gibson Street. Background information is being provided separately regarding the City's contract amount changes over the years and additional non-contract support City has provided the SPCA. (P:\SPCA\M0306061.SPCA) Attachments SPCA Animal Control Contract #96-178 Animal Control Contract/ Chanoes · Increase % Increase June 26, 1996'--96-178 $462,756 June 16, 1999--96-178(1) $493,500 $30,744 6.64% May 24, 2000--96-178(2) $498,000 $4,500 0.91% January 31, 2001 --96-178(3). $541,608 $43,608 8.76% June 5, 2001--96-178(4) $619,392 $77,784 14.36% June 12, 2002--96-178(5) $679,221 $59,829 9.66% $216,465 SPCA Contractrequest(original) $968,169 $288,948 42.54% 2003-2004 (Itrdated Feb. 21,2003) *increase of $19,288 (annual) from previous contract (#95-189, July 1995, $442,468) Note: Separately, City provided SPCA with $35,000 for A/C truck, 5-6-98. Note: In 2002, the SPCA received the last of ten $45,000 payments " to assist them in constructing their facility at 3000 Gibson ($450,000 over a ten year period). Note: May 2002 (AGR 02-159), City surplused a police' sedan to SPCA for $1,200. Note: May 14, 2003, City Council provides SPCA with 7 surplus computers for $7.00. SPCA~S PCAContractHistoryWorksheet I 6/6/2003 SPCA Contracts with the City of Bakersfield Date Auree~mt # De~cripti0n Y~rlv Amount 6-5-91 91-113 AC $38,700 month $464,400 7-15-92 92-156 Amendment to 91-113 $487,620 6-23-93 93-119 Amendment g2 to 91-113, service $414,000 "Has decreased" 10-27-93 93-219 Amendment #3 to 91-113, add $414,000 'Construction Gra~t $45,000 per Year for 10 year~ ($450,000) 7-19-95 95-189 Amendment ~4 to 91-113 $442,468 6-26-96 96-178 $38,563 each month, increase $19,288 $462,756 '12-4-96 96332 Separates Grant fxom AC Contract, Seis time schedule 5-6-98 Transfer $35,000 to Council Contingency For SPCA AC Truck 6-24-98 96-332(1) Reduee~ restrictions in 96-332 6-16-99 96-178(1) $41,125 per month, increase $30,744 $493,500 5-24-00 96-178(2) Annual Increase of $4,500 $498,000 1-31-01 96-178(3) $45,134 per month, effective 1-1-01 $541,608 6-5-01 96-178(4) $51,616 per month, effective 7-1-01 $619,392 6-12-02 96-178(5) $56,601.75 per month, effective 7-1-02 $679,221 (P:~PCA~PCAContracts) JUN - 5 2003 BAKERSFIELD  CITY MANAGER'S '-"~'"~' June 5, 2003 Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA. 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy In response to your letter dated June 3, 2003 concerning the amendment to paragraph 4, and newly recommended amendments to paragraphs 13 and 33, the Bakersfield SPCA submits that it is unable to accept the proposed changes. Of particular concern are the suggested changes to paragraphs 13 and 33, which would allow.a further $50,000 decrease in the budget. Given the size of the city population and its alarming need for animal control, the SPCA does not view further reductions to the Cities Animal Control budget as conducive to a sound or professional public safety program. As such, any degradation to this program reflects directly upon the SPCA and would thus be non-facilitative to our image. In reference to paragraph 4, Emergency Pick Up, and as discussed before, the allocated budget for the after hour Emergency Pick-Up or Response Program does not carry sufficient funding to allow for the response to non-emergency pick-up of stray animals as requested by the general population. The SPCA would consider however, accepting the Cities wording of paragraph 4, Emergency Pick Up, provided the City were amenable to increasing the animal control overtime budget by 200% or $34,560.00. We regret that there continues to exist between the parties issues that slow the process. However, we remain confident in finding a resolution to these roadblocks. If there are any questions please contact me at (661) 323-8353. Sincerely, Executive Director Pet Adoption Center, 3000 Gib~°n Street. Bakersfield, CA 93308 - (661)3Z3-8353 - FAX (661)3Z3-0949 · Animal Control Shelter, 3000 Gibson Street - Bakersfield, CA 93308 www. bakersfieldspca~°r9 il BAKERSFIELD June 3, 2003 Alan Tandy · City Manager VIA FAX: (661) 323-0949 Mr. Robert Strawser Executive Director Bakersfield S.P.C.A. 3000 Gibson Street Bakersfield, CA 93308 Dear Mr. Strawser: This letter responds to yours to Alan Tandy dated May 30, 2003. In your letter you indicate the SPCA agrees with City staff proposals relating to new contract language in paragraphs 3, 8, 10, and 12 and that Society is unable to accept or agree with City's proposed changes to paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 14, and 42. For clarification, at the staff level, City had agreed in "2. Patrol," upon "five days each week' "during normal working hours'; ",5. Investigations,' adding "vicious dogs"; "14. Budget Submittal" staying with "April 1', and under "42. Term' the proposed "two years" and terminating on "June 30, 2005." As proposed in your letter, this leaves number 4, Emergency Pick Up, remaining .to be resolved. After further review, it is felt the language in the currently existing contract (paragraph #5, Agreement #96-178) adequately states services to be provided while giving the SPCA latitude in providing those same services. In addition to the above, the City is proposing to add additional following language under "13. Compensati0n?_.and '33. Resource Allocation.' Under 13, the following sentence is added at the end: "SOCIETY has read and understands the possibility of resource reductions as set forth in this Agreement." Under 33, the following is added at the end: 'At the time this contract is signed, significant unknowns to the CITY's budget exist. Should the CITY experience substantial negative budgetary impacts, it reserves the right to reduce the yearly contract amount by $50,000. Should this contingency occur, City will work with SOCIETY to effectuate the budget reduction in such a way as to have the least negative budgetary impact possible upon the SOCIETY." Please let me know at your earliest possible time the SPCA's Willingness to accept the above proposals or need for further discussion. Sincerely, Administrative Analyst III SPCA~0306031 cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager John W. Stinson, AssistantCity Manager City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 324-1850 HALL AMBULANCE SERVICE INCORPORATED' 1001-21st STREET BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-4792 June 10, 2003 Alan TandY, Mana_g~r City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: This is to inform you that Gene Tackett has resigned as the political consultant for Hall Ambulance Service. After a long and valued relationship, Gene felt there were other avenues that he would like to pursue at this time. In this period of transition please feel free to contact Darlene Denison or Louis Cox should you have any questions or concerns. Sin ely, /~~/~ Founder/President f /je "WE CARE. EVERY HOUR. EVERY DAY." AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 5, 2003 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 27, 2003 SENATE BILL No. 707 Introduced by Senator Florez February 21, 2003 An act to add Section 21151.3 to the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 707, as amended, Florez. Environmental quality: confined animal facilities. (1) The existing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill would prohibit the certification of an environmental impact report and the approval of a negative declaration, for any project that includes the construction or alteration of a confined animal facility, as defined, within 3 miles of a city or a "census defined place," as defined, of at least 5,000 persons, unless specified requirements are met. The bill would also prohibit a public agency from approving or carrying out the project unless the public agency finds that a specified buffer zone is incorporated into the project. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 97 SB 707 2 ....................................... ~ .......... d. ~e state, (2) ~e California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs ~ndated by the state. Smtuto~ provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would p~vide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majodty. Appropdation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 21151.3 is added to the ~blic 2 Resources Code, to read: 3 21151.3. (a) No environmental impact repo~ may be 4 ce~ified ~d no negative decimation may be approved, for any 5 project that includes ~e construction or alteration of a confined 6 animal hcility wi~in ~ee ~les of a ci~ or a census defin~ place 7 of at least 5,000 persons, unless all of the following occur: 8 (1) ~e lead agency consults with the city, and the coun~ in 9 which the census defined place is locate& pdor to dete~ining 10 whether ~ environmental impact repoa or negative d~l~afion is 11' required for ~e p oject 0 19 (2) ~e lead agency provides to the city, and the coun~ 20 which the census defined place is locate& the notice required by 97 3 SB 707 1 Sections 21080.4 and 21092. T~, 7 (3) The environmental impact report or negative declaration 8 specifies a buffer zone for the project that is required in order to 9 mitigate the adverse impacts of the project. 10 (b) Notwithstanding Section 21081, no public agency shall 11. approve or carry out a project involving the construction or 12 alteration of a confined animal facility unless the public agency 13 makes a finding that the buffer zone specified in the environmental 14 impact report or negative declaration is incorporated into the 15 project. 16 (c) This section is not a limitation on the power of any public 17 agency in the enforcement or administration of any provision of 18 law. 19 (d) As used in this section, the following terms have the 20 following meaning meanings: 21 (1) "Buffer zone" means an area of land that surrounds a 22 project that includes the construction or alteration of a confined 23 animal facility, and on which certain land uses and activities are 24 prohibited to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and the 25 environment from existing or potential impacts caused by the 26 project. 27 (2) "Census defined place" means a specific unincorporated 28 land area within the boundaries determined by the United States 29 Census Bureau in the most recent decennial census. 30 (3) "Confined animal facility" means a facility that consists of 31 any .structure, building, installation, barn, corral, coop, feed 32 storage area, milking parlor, or system for the collection, storage, 33 treatment, and distribution of liquid and solid manure, if 34 domesticated animals, including, but not limited to, cattle, calves, 35 horses, sheep, goats, swine, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, or ducks are 36 corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas 37 of the facility for commercial agricultural purposes and feeding by 38 means other than grazing. 97 SB 707 4 7 ~ 8 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this actpursuant to 9 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because 10 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service 11 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or 12 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 13 17556 of the Government Code. 97 SB 707 Assembly Bill - Status Page 1 of 1 CURRENT BILL STATUS MEASURE : S.B. No. 707 AUTHOR(S) : Florez. TOPIC : Environmental quality: confined animal facilities. HOUSE LOCATION : ASM +LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/05/2003 TYPE OF BILL : Active Non-Urgency Non-Appropriations Majority Vote Required State-Mandated Local Program Fiscal Non-Tax Levy LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/29/2003 LAST HIST. ACTION : In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. TITLE : An act to add Section 21151.3 to the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality. http://www.le~nfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_707_bill_20030602_status.html 6/6/2003 SB 707 Senate Bill - History Page 1 of 1 COMPLETE BILL HISTORY BILL NUMBER : S.B. No. 707 AUTHOR : Florez TOPIC : Environmental quality: confined animal facilities. TYPE OF BILL : Active Non-Urgency Non-Appropriations Majority Vote Required State-Mandated Local 'Program Fiscal Non-Tax Levy BILL HISTORY 2003 May 29 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. May 29 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 22. Noes 16. Page 1114.) To Assembly. May 20 Read second time. To third reading. May 19 From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8. May 8 Set for hearing May 19. May 5 Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. May 1 From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 720.) Apr. 8 Set for hearing April 28. Apr. 3 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on ENV. QUAL. Apr. 1 Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. Mar. 27 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to committee. Mar. 13 To Com. on AGR. & WAT. RES. Feb. 24 Read first time. Feb. 22 From print. May be acted upon on or after March 24. Feb. 21 Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_707_bill_20030529_history.html 6/6/2003 Los Angeles Times: New Limits on Strip Clubs Go to Council Page 1 of 3 Cl Sponsored by ~m~builder http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-strip 10j unl 0,1,7568829. story advortisornont New Limits on Strip Clubs Go to ': Council Panel approves a ban on lap dancing, any other contact between patrons and entertainers. Adult businesses say measure is unconstitutional. By Matea Gold Times Staff Writer June 10, 2003 Lap dancing and entertaining in private "VIP rooms" would be banned at Los Angeles strip clubs under an ordinance approved Monday by a City Council's committee. If approved by the City Council and mayor, the ordinance also would prohibit direct tipping and any physical contact between strippers and customers. It would require them to remain at least six feet apart. "This will clean up the industry," said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, chairwoman of the council's Public Safety Committee, who proposed the measure aimed at curbing prostitution and other crime associated with the clubs. But the ordinance was immediately criticized by representatives of adult businesses as unconstitutional. eme~uilder~ "Do we want a society where we're so controlled that we cannot do anything at all, 1 that we can't move in one direction or another?" asked Roger Jon Diamond, a SantaI Til~ m~ Monica attorney who represents about 25 adult clubs in Los Angeles and who t~ fl~ a hette~j°k compared the law with prohibitions enacted by the Taliban in Afghanistan.. "What is the city next going to do, say you can't go to a teacher to be taught ballroom dancing?" Diamond asked. Under the new law, club owners would have to renew their police permits annually to ensure that they had not violated any regulations. A violator of the measure, which includes civil and criminal provisions, would face a $2,500 fine and six months in jail. Local ordinances outlawing so-called lap dancing have fared Poorly in state courts. In 1999, the state's http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-strip 10junl 0&section=/[... 6/10/2003 Los Angeles Times: New Limits on Strip Clubs Go to Council Page 2 of 3 4th Appellate District overmmed an Anaheim ordinance on the basis that the law was preempted by the state penal code, which outlaws prostitution and lewd conduct. Los Angeles Deputy City Atty. Asha Greenberg said that although the city expects adult businesses to fight the measure, she is confident that the new law will not be overturned. She said that, in 1998, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a local ordinance in Washington state that requires dancers to stay 10 feet from patrons. "We have tried to research the law and support everything we put in it," she said. The proposed ordinance was cheered by residents who have complained that the activity inside strip clubs spills into their neighborhoods. A West Los Angeles resident, Cristi Walden, said six adult businesses have opened in her neighborhood in the last 10 years, including two clubs with total nudity, all within a radius of three-quarters of a mile. In the last few months, police have made six prostitution arrests in the area, she said. Neighbors regularly find used condoms near the clubs and witness public sex. "It's ridiculous," Walden said. "People have just had it." But industry lobbyists and strippers said the measure would cripple the industry by prohibiting the most lucrative activity at the clubs. On Monday morning, dancers from a North Hollywood nude club told the Public Safety Committee that they make the bulk of their money from lap dances and entertaining customers in private rooms. "Solely being on stage on a platform, I would not survive," said a 36-year-old stripper and actor, who asked that her name not be published for fear that disclosure would hurt her ability to get other jobs. "I hope this doesn't go into effect, because I don't know what I'd do," she said. A 23-year-old dancer told the council committee that the six-foot rule would make the environment "very impersonal." "I can put on one heck of a show, let me tell you," said the stripper, who also did not want to be identified. "I'm fabulous But it's not going to give me revenue." She insisted that activity inside the club is limited to "hugs." One of her customers, an 85-year-old widower, comes in several times a month and lies down with her on a bed in the VIP room, she said. "We cuddle," she said. "You should be able to reach out to somebody when they're needy." There are currently few restrictions on adult businesses in Los Angeles. Clubs that have full nudity cannot serve alcohol, and there are regulations about how close a venue can be to a school or playground. But officials said they have been unable to curb illegal activities inside the clubs, because those activities take place in private rooms. "It's gotten to the point where the police are saying there's blatant prostitution" in the strip clubs, Greenberg said. http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-strip 10junl 0&section=/[... 6/10/2003 Los Angeles Times: New Limits on Strip Clubs Go to Council Page 3 of 3 Among other measures, the law would eliminate private rooms and require the presence of a full-time manager and security guard at all times. Undercover officers could make an arrest if they see a dancer sit on a patron's lap. Representatives of the adult business industry argued that the city should seek to regulate the clubs through zoning laws, not by restricting behavior inside the club. Lobbyist Steve Afriat, representing a chain of eight clubs, told the Public Safety Committee that it would be opening a Pandora's box with the new law. "I would question whether this City Council really wants to go down a path of regulating what takes place inside," he said. Times staff writer Monte Morin contributed to this report. Ifl~u want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. BClick here for article licensing and reprint options Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-strip 10junl 0&section=/[... 6/10/2003 ~'Los Angeles Times: Budget'Rancor Increases Page 1 of 4 http://www.latimes.com/news(politics/la-me-budget 10jun10001419, 1,7814867.story?coil=la-headlines- politics. advertisement Budget Rancor Increases State's Democratic and GOP leaders trade barbs as impasse over shortfall comes down to the wire. By Evan Halpcr Times Staff Writer June 10, 2003 SACRAMENTO -- Running out of time to meet California's constitutional budget deadline, leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties sniped at one another Monday, each accusing the other side of forcing the state toward an even deeper fiscal crisis. State Treasurer Phil Angelides, a Democrat, opened the hostilities Monday by accusing two top Republicans of triggering "rapidly escalating concerns" on Wall Street with recent political moves, which have included supporting an effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis and threatening to retaliate against legislators of their party who agreed to tax hikes. Angelides, who is considering a run for governor, said that the maneuvering could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars -- and even its ability to borrow altogether. Republicans called his letter a "smoke screen" and shot back that the problem is reckless spending by Democrats. Jim Brulte, the Senate Republican leader whose tactics Angelides deplored, said he m e uildB - had consistently voted against budgets that overspent the state treasury, and thus had not contributed to the current problems. The ~arte[ ~ to fln~ a hetterjoh. "Having opposed the last three Davis budgets, I am both puzzled and fascinated by the logic you use to assert that I am somehow responsible for the state's precarious credit rating,'.' Bmlte wrote. As those officials sought to blame each other for the lack of progress toward winning approval of a state budget by the Sunday deadline, others worked from the sidelines or avoided the fray altogether. Among Monday's developments: http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-budgetl 0jun10001419&... 6/10/2003 ~-~-Los Angeles Times: Budget Rancor Increases Page 2 of 4 · Davis, who was in Los Angeles for the day, made no public appearances. Instead he scheduled a meeting of the legislative leadership for today. In recent weeks, such leadership meetings have done little to move the budget forward. · Finance experts eyed the escalating rhetoric warily, warning that, although they are reluctant to comment during the deliberations, they also are cognizant of the harsh words being traded between top officials. "While we make note of the progress or lack of progress being made in the budget debate, we will try not to get too caught up in the day-to-day rhetoric that goes on," said Raymond Murphy, a senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Services. Moody's, a bond-rating agency, already has lowered California's credit rating to the bottom rung for states, driving up its cost of borrowing. Assembly Democrats, rather than tackling the budget with the urgency that Wall Street and others are demanding, spent much of the day debating how to respond to a lobbyist who insulted two members last week and threatened to scuttle their bills unless they backed legislation supported by one of his clients. · A coalition of education groups, fearing the cost to the state of a prolonged deadlock, launched an advertising campaign to step up pressure on the lawmakers to act. Angelides was the first into the debate Monday, with his letter to legislators. In addition to criticizing Brulte for threatening political retaliation against Republicans who support taxes, Angelides said that Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine), vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, had unsettled investors with his decision to back the Davis recall. "Your actions and comments of recent days have crossed the line," he wrote to Brulte and Campbell. "They send a dangerous signal -- that rancor will tromp good-faith efforts to resolve policy disagreements, triggering a budget stalemate, a cash-flow crisis, and the crippling of critical services." At least eight Republican votes are needed to meet the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. Democrats say the budget hole has become so deep that trying to close it without new revenue would be impossible. Along with cuts to some programs, they have proposed $8 billion in new taxes on sales, vehicles, tobacco and high eamers. Republicans say they oppose all new taxes, which they say would impede the state's economic recovery. In his letter, Angelides warned that the recent escalation in rhetoric was deepening the budget stalemate. If that continues, he said, it could lead to another reduction in the state's credit rating, already the lowest in the nation. A drop of one notch in the rating, he said, would cost taxpayers about $400 million; a two- notch downgrade would cost Californians more than twice that. Angelides called on Republican lawmakers to issue public statements saying they are willing to modify their positions on the budget in a good-faith effort to reach a compromise. The Republicans refused, saying that their stand on taxes is not the root problem. The real issue, they said, is that Democrats have overspent the state budget year after year, and that they must be stopped for the state to regain sound economic footing. After reminding Angelides that he had opposed Davis' previous spending plans, Brulte added: "I am also disappointed that, while many conservatives like me were raising the flag to warn about overspending, you remained, either on the sidelines or actively encouraging liberals to spend even more." http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-me-budgetl 0jun10001419&... 6/10/2003 ~Los Angeles Times: Budget Rancor Increases Page 3 of 4 Several major Wall Street banks have advised the state Department of Finance that, without a new sales tax, they would be reluctant to loan the state $10 billion that lawmakers in both parties hope to borrow to roll over the state deficit into the next five years. The borrowing is a linchpin of every budget proposal on the table. Republicans say they are confident the banks will still loan the state money without a new tax, and are simply trying to negotiate the best deal for their investors at the expense of taxpayers. Although the two sides were far apart on that question, some legislators were working last week on a deal to trade Republican support for a tax hike for Democratic backing of legislation to overhaul the state workers' compensation system. That effort was cut short, however, when Brulte warned members of his party in a closed-door joint Assembly-Senate GOP caucus lunch that he would work to end their political careers if they voted in favor of a tax increase. Brulte said he would raise money for the next election to defeat legislators who straYed from the party's anti-tax position and would visit their districts to campaign against them. He showed his fellow party members a mock advertisement that he said he would mail to voters in an effort to have them defeated. One lawmaker who was there called it "brazen intimidation." Campbell recently signed a letter urging voters to sign recall petitions against Davis, and gave $ i 0,000 to the recall campaign. In the letter, Campbell identified himself as vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee and blamed Davis for causing the deficit by "overspending and then lying about it." Administration officials said the move called into question his seriousness about getting a budget passed. Until Brulte issued his ultimatum, a few Republicans said'privately they would consider a plan to increase the sales tax by half a cent in exchange for the easing of government regulations on business. Those Republicans have since said that they no longer are considering supporting a tax hike. Democrats said the move has brought budget negotiations to a halt. Lawmakers made no discemable progress toward an agreement Monday. Assembly Democrats spent.much of the afternoon tied up in caucus, discussing whether lobbyists have too much influence over the Legislature after Richie Ross, a lobbyist for the United Farm Workers, lashed out at the chiefs of staff of two Democratic lawmakers last week. Frustrated by the lack of apparent progress toward a deal, a coalition of teachers unions, school officials and parents groups began airing radio ads Monday, calling on lawmakers to pass a budget on time. In one of the advertisements, a young boy tells his mother that he gets an "F" if he turns in his schoolwork late. An announcer then says, "Let's hope they don't fail the test." I~u want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. Click here for article licensing and reprint options http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-budget 10jun 10001419&... 6/10/2003 Los Angeles Times: Lawmakers Leave Budget in Limbo Page 1 of 3 Sponsored by caree builder http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget 13jun 13. story advertisement Lawmakers Leave Budget in Limbo With the deadline just days away, legislators take off for the weekend. Some state workers begin receiving notices Of possible layoffs. By Evan Halper Times Staff Writer June 13, 2003 SACRAMENTO -- With less than four days to go before breaking the constitutional deadline to pass a state budget, California legislators debated resolutions related to Father's Day and golf carts for less than an hour Thursday, then headed for the airport to fly home for the weekend. By day's end, the Capitol was quiet, empty of most of the state's lawmakers, who left behind a $38- billion budget hole and no plan to fill it. As the legislators left, they conceded that they will, as they often have in the past, fail to meet the June 15 budget deadline. As they left, the budget debate churned without them: · State employees began receiving the first of more than 10,000 notices warning them of possible layoffs. The notices took some union leaders by surprise, and they signaled contract talks in coming days as the government will seek concessions from unions to avert layoffs. · Some Republican legislators, upon learning that their party leaders were considering a plan to cut $1 billion in funding for local governments, wrote to express their "grave concerns" about that proposal. That idea remains one of many floating through the Capitol as key lawmakers search for ways to close the budget gap. For the Legislature, however, neither the magnitude of the debate nor the approaching budget deadline was a reason to cancel weekend plans. As they lined up at the Southwest Airlines electronic ticket kiosk to print boarding passes, Republicans and Democrats pointed fingers, lamented the lack of leadership in Sacramento and insisted that they were ready to work through the weekend if there were any point in doing so. "I could spend the next two weeks in the Bahamas for all the progress I think we are going to make," said Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). Koretz complained that the threat by Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga last week to work to end the political careers of any members in his party who vote with Democrats for a tax increase has paralyzed the process. The only thing left to jump-start it at this point, he said, is for the government to run out of money: "The first time you http://www.latimes.corn/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-budget 13junl 3 &section=/printstory 6/13/2003 '~os Angeles Times: Lawmakers Leave Budget in Limbo Page 2 of 3 will see any serious negotiations is when the state starts to shut down in a couple of months." Though Koretz is one of the few lawmakers expected back in town before late Sunday night, he is coming not for work but to attend a wedding. He said he would be happy to go to the office Sunday if there were any reason. "I have nothing else to do," he said. His wife quickly corrected him: "Clean your apartment," she said. After months of negotiations, Democrats and Republicans remain miles apart on how to close the gap. · Democrats said the only humane way to do it is with at least $8 billionin tax hikes. They warned that a half-cent sales tax hike is needed to pay off a $10.7-billion loan that both parties want to make to close the current-year deficit. Without that tax, the Democrats said, banks won't lend the money. Republicans countered by arguing that the bankers who have warned of cutting off the state are bluffing in an effort to do the bidding of Gov. Gray Davis. A tax increase, they said, is unnecessary and would harm the state's economy. Unable to bridge that impasse, legislators headed home. Assemblyman John Longville (D-Rialto) shouted out a quick math lesson to reporters who asked why he was darting for a midafternoon plane to Ontario instead of staying in Sacramento to work on the budget. "Forty-eight plus zero does not equal 54, no matter how much I wish it did," said the lawmaker, referring to the six Republican votes Democrats need to pass a spending plan in the Assembly. Even the governor's budget chief, Department of Finance Director Steve Peace, left his post. "I don't have a vote," he said. Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher (R-Brea) sported a large blue button that read, "3 DAYS," in blazing yellow, a reminder of the budget deadline, as she prepared to board a plane to leave the Capitol. "If there is something to do on Sunday, I'm here," she said. Lawmakers are on call through the weekend. That means they are supposed to be able to get to the Capitol building within two hours of being summoned by Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D-Culver City). Yet many of them hopped on planes for Southern California -- suggesting the two-hour rule is loosely applied. Assembly members must check in at the building Sunday. But they have until 11 p.m. to do so. Daucher and some other Republicans resented implications by Democrats that Brulte's ultimatum is to blame for the budget negotiation breakdown. The real problem, they said, is a Democratic majority in the Legislature that passed record spending increases in recent years and now refuses to cut programs in hard times. "Senator Brulte didn't help me get elected, and I'm responsible only to my voters," said Daucher, a member of a bipartisan group that has been working on budget solutions. "We don't need revenue increases." Still, one Republican assemblyman expressed fi'ustration with Brulte. "There is no question Senator Bmlte's comments have had an effect on people," said Keith Richman (R-Northridge). http://www.latimes, com/templates/misc/pfintstorTd' s~p~la-me-budget 13junl 3 &section=/pfintstory 6/13/2003 '-Los Angeles Times: Lawmakers Leave Budget in Limbo Page 3 of 3 Some lawmakers on their way out of town said that the June 15 deadline is not what really matters, and that lawmakers blow it almost every year with impunity. They said what is important is approving a spending plan by the time the new fiscal year starts July 1. If a budget is not in place by then, vendors and state workers could stop getting paid in full. And some education money may not make it to schools by the beginning of the academic year if gridlock drags on. As legislators were leaving town, the state was beginning to deliver bad news to thousands of workers. Because of the state's precarious financial condition, officials said, more than 10,000 notices warning of possible layoffs will be issued in coming days to state workers. The notices, which began going out this week, are tied to Davis' request that each state department find a way to trim its personnel costs by 10%. By law, the state must give employees 120 days' notice before they are laid off. Marry Morgenstern, head of the Department of Personnel Administration, said talks with state emplOyee unions about averting the layoffs through renegotiating contracts will intensify in coming days. "If you delay, it gets more complicated, and sometimes more painful," he said. "We're hoping to get it done quickly." The state intends to send notices to 469 Highway Patrol officers out of a force of 5,500. Lance Corcoran of the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. said he expects that the Davis administration will mail notices to 1,800 correctional officers and 45 sergeants. "The intent is to get people ready and communicate to the [employee bargaining] units that this is real," Corcoran said. The notices tell rank-and-file state workers that "should you choose not to bargain, this is the consequence." Corcoran said the administration and the union representing more than 20,000 prison workers are "miles apart." The timing of the notices came as a bit of a surprise. "We had no clue that this was coming," said Jon Hamm, chief executive of the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen. "We had no notification." The state Senate did not convene at all on Thursday, but in the Assembly, lawmakers did meet, if only briefly. They gathered for about an hour, during which time they sparred over the Father's Day bill. They did agree, however, to pass one piece of legislation. Under it, golf carts would be allowed to cross a state highway near the gated golf course community of Rancho Murrieta in southern Sacramento County. Times staff writers Dan Morain and Nancy Vogel contributed to this report. If~ want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latlmes.conVarchlves. Click here for article IIcenMng and reprint optlon8 Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.j sp?slug=la-me-budget 13junl 3 &section=/printstory 6/13/2003 Date: June 9, 2003 ~ .Iti~! ! 12003 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Eric W. Matlock, Chief of Police Subject: Special Enforcement Gang Violence Report I have enclosed the Special Enforcement Unit's monthly report for May. Please call me if you have any questions. ,, EWM/vrf Bakersfield Police Department Special Enforcement Unit Monthly Report - May 2003 The following is a compilation of the performance of the Special Enforcement Unit and significant incidents / investigations for May 2003. 69 Felony Arrests 6 Guns Seized 55 Special Reports 21 Misdemeanor Arrests 123 Fl's 26 General Offense Reports 19 Felony Warrant Arrests 5 Citations 11 Vehicle Reports 23 Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests 60 Prob./Par. Searches 2 Search Warrants 4 2003 Shootings Hrs. Assisting Other 2 2002 Shootings 342 Hours In Training 242 Department 5 2001 Shootings Sections 4 2000 Shootings 14 1999 Shootings Year to Date Statistics January - May 2003 344 Felony Arrests 28 Guns Seized 311 Special Reports 128 Misdemeanor Arrests 868 Fl's 76 General Offense Reports 63 Felony Warrant Arrests 40 Citations 66 Vehicle Reports 113 Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests 353 Prob./Par. Searches 6 Search Warrants 13 2003 Shootings Hrs. Assisting Other 10 2002 Shootings 1616 Hours In Training 1065 Department 18 2001 Shootings Sections 24 2000 Shootings 53 1999 Shootings JUN I 0 20O3 Department of Recreation and Parks Date: June 10, 2003 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks Subject: Monthly Report for May Attached are the monthly activity reports for each division. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let me know. P:\tandy memo.doc 11:48 AM B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Monthly Report Adult Sports Softball Spring season ended with the exception of a couple of leagues ending in a tie that will require a championship game in June. We had 79 teams, 51 men's and 28 co- ed teams, 1384 adults participated. Summer league registration ended on Friday May 30; there are 95 teams, 55 men's and 30 co-ed and 10 registered in the law league. Youth Sports Pee Wee Track First year program for boys and girls 4 to 8 years of old. The program consisted of three sessions; each youth had the opportunity to train in sprints, long jump, standing long jump, softball toss, hurdles and distance running. 32 youth enjoyed the program. Tee-Ball Summer registration ended May 30, we have 203 youth ages 5-7 enrolled last season there were 148. Mobile Recreation The program ended May 30; staff will spend the better part of the following week taking inventory of all equipment and supplies, also cleaning trucks and trailers. Car Show Our committee starting in May has been meeting twice a month, every first and third Wednesday until the show. Dean Jones Page I 6/3/2003 1:21 PM B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parhs Date: June 2, 2003 To: Stan Ford, Recreation & Parks Director From: David Stricker, Acting Recreation Supervisor Subject: May 2003 Monthly Report DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY CENTER The center had no rentals this month. Camp King begins on June 16th. We currently have 100 children enrolled. Many exciting activities are planned including trips, swimming, speakers from the community and special events. Activity Monthly Attendance Registered Participants Weight Room 610 * After-School Program 100 15 Game Room 399 * Basketball Gym 45 * Computer 20 6 Aerobics 139 15 Internet 68 * Quilting Class 52 20 1,433 56 Drop-in program (Registration not requited) Attendance Monthly Counter walk-in participants ....................................... 275 Monthly Attendance of all programs including rentals ..................... 1,708 LOWELL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CENTER The total attendance for the Lowell Neighborhood Community center for the month of May was 821 participants. The Lowell Center is getting geared up for its summer program which will begin June 16th and end on July 10th. The hours will be from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm. B A K E R S F I E L D DATE: June 2, 2003 TO: Stan Ford, Director FROM: Holly Larson, Supervisor RE: May Monthly Report Aquatic Recruitment: Year to Date Total Interviewed and selected 115 Aquatic Trainings: Monthly Attendance Lifeguard training 49 Swim instructor training 61 Renewal training 22 Coaches training 19 Leisure Classes: Registered Monthly Attendance East Coast Swing 12 37 Night Club Two Step 11 25 Aquatics Programs: Registered Session Attendance Spring Lessons 20 160 C:\Documents and Settings\stbrd\Local SettingsWcmp\monthly report.docC:\Documents and Settings\sford\Local Settings\Temp\monthly report.doc 6/2/20039:35 AM Pool Parties: Number of Parties Number of Participants Planz 3 320 Jastro 3 340 Pool Usage: Silver Creek Pool Silver Creek replastering project was completed in Mid May and was therefore only used at the end of the month for coaches training. Jastro Pool This pool was used by West and Bakersfield High Schools Monday through Friday afternoons and by the Aquatics Club of Bakersfield until May16. Spring lessons were held here the last two weeks of the month. Pool parties were held here during the last week of May. Jefferson Pool This pool was used by Games Memorial High School Monday through Friday afternoons and by Ridgeview and South until May 16. This pool was also used for swim instructor and lifeguard trainings. Planz Pool This pool was used for pool parties the last week of May. C:\Documents and Settings\sfbrd\Local Settings\Temp\monthly report.docC:\Documents and Settings\sford\Local Settings~Temp\monthly report.doc 6/2/20039:35 AM B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parl~s Date: June 2, 2003 To: Stan Ford, Director From: Terri Elison, Recreation Supervisor Subject: May Monthly Report Greenfield After School Program Highlights of the After School Program included finishing up the softball season; creating alien puppets and putting on a show; making Mother's Day tissue flowers and cards; creating other arts and craft projects celebrating spring and Cinco de Mayo; and playing several outdoor games. Silver Creek After School Proc~ram Highlights of the After School Program included several arts and craft projects celebrating Mother's Day, and Cinco de Mayo; making a scrapbook of the activities they had this past year; and taking the students on a make believe trip to an island far away where they played games, sang songs, and read stories. Keep Bakersfield Beautiful Program The 2n~ Annual Great American Clean-up event held on April 26th was a huge success and all team leaders and sponsors received a special thank you gift. Caltrans invited KBB committee members, CHP, and Mayor Harvey Hall to a press conference on May 27th regarding the litter along the Highway 99 corridor. Caltrans collected litter for one week and had it displayed on the northbound Highway 65 off- ramp from Highway 99. This display had a flashing message sign that stated "$1000 fine for littering"and "Care for California-Pitch in"! This press conference informed the public how each individual can make a difference. Carrie Sussman from Keep American Beautiful was in Bakersfield one week to train 10:40 AM6/3/2003Terri May 2003 Report.docCreated by Telison KBB committee members on the Cigarette Butt Litter Campaign. During this week she met with the Mayor, Council Member Sue Benham, Solid Waste Department, Stan Ford, Downtown Business Association, and Kern County Board of Supervisors. Bakersfield is one of three cities selected for this program. The campaign will begin August 1st and include Public Service Announcements, distribution of pocket ashtrays as well as the recommended placement of the ash receptacles. John Enriques is chairing this new program. Kevin Burton, chairman for the Liberty Gardens Memorial, has been working hard on the Liberty Garden Golf Tournament scheduled for June 9th at Seven Oaks County Club. Funds raised will be used to build this memorial. Sue Smith from Keep America Beautiful came to Bakersfield and met with KBB committee members, and the staff from the Solid Waste Department. She also gave a presentation to the. Rotary Club on Keep American Beautiful Programs. Other projects KBB is working on are Adopt-an-Area, C.U.B. Patch Program, and a promotion of the 86-CLEAN Number. ATTENDANCE FIGURES Average Daily Attendance Monthly Attendance Greenfield Union School District Fairview ............................................................. 155 3879 Kendrick ............................................................ 157 3781 McKee ............................................................... 267 6418 Palla .................................................................. 227 5452 Planz ................................................................. 109 2627 Plantation ................................................. 26 627 Silver Creek After School Program ............. 29 487 (4 days only Mon. - Thurs.) TOTAL ATTENDANCE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS ...... 23,271 Silver Creek Rentals ................................................... $553.00 (,~g.re does.or ~.c~.de,e,o.,.~ The Silver Creek multi-purpose room and/or pavilion were rented two times during the month of May. The center was rented for a wedding reception and family reunion. Total attendance was approximately 200. Classes at Silver Creek: # Registered Total Attendance Ballet & Gym (6 -11) 11 58 Ballet & Gym (3-5) 14 70 Bicycle Safety no class no class Calligraphy Workshop no class no class Chess no class no class 10:40 AM 6/3/2003 Terri May 2003 Report.doc Created by Telison Clogging 20 80 Dance & Gym (4-5) 11 44 Dance & Gym (2-3) 16 64 Dog Obedience 15 60 Drawing 3 9 Guitar (Beg.) 6 24 Guitar (Beg. Int.) 5 20 Kardio Kick 23 161 Karate 24 192 Photography no class no class Pressed Flower Workshop no class no class Scrapbooking no class no class Spanish no class no class Tennis (Child-Beg) 5 40 Tennis (Child-lnt) 8 64- Tennis (Adults) 4 32 Upholstery 4 40 Watercolor no class no class Yoga 7 56 TOTAL 176 1,014 Classes at Other Facilities # Registered Total Attendance Siemon Park Tennis (Child) 7 63 Tennis (Adult) no class no class All Star Dance Studio Dance & Gym (2 ¼ - 4) 4 16 Dance & Gym (4 - 5) no class no class American Academy of Gymnastics Gymnastics (4 - 5) no class no class Gymnastics (3 - 4) no class no class Gymnastics (K - 6yrs) no class no class Gymnastics (Mom & Me) no class no class Gymnastics (3 - 5) no class no class TOTAL 11 79 Keep Bakersfield Beautiful Pro.qram Liberty Garden Memorial Meetings 20 Gmat American Clean-up Evaluation Meeting 7 Keep Bakersfield Beautiful Meetings 79 Total Attendance 106 10:40 AM6/3/2003Tetri May 2003 Report.docCreated by Telison Movies in the Park Families enjoyed Friday night Movies in the Park in May. The following movies have been presented this month: May 16th Patriots Park "Goonies" 450 May 23rd Planz Park "Raiders of the Lost Ark" 275 May 30th Beach Park "Jungle Book" 400 Total Attendance 1,125 Attendance Silver Creek Center: Rentals ......................................... 200 Classes ...... · .................................. 1,014 Registrations Taken: 449 After School Program ................ 487 # of Guests Served: 653 (The # of Guests served does not include registration) TOTAL .................... 1,701 10:40 AM 6/3/2003 Terri May 2003 Report.doc Created by Telison B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Parks Division May 2003, Report Planz Park Playground Replacement of Planz Park playground equipment was completed in time Memorial Day weekend. Final work included installation of 4,086 square feet of rubber surfacing and approximately 250 tons of playground sand. Unfortunately, the playground was targeted by taggers prior to completion of work. New Acreage Three parcels were accepted into Maintenance District acreage for Parks Division to maintain with a combined total of 8.06 acres. Landscaping improvements within these areas included 141 trees and 666 shrubs. Two General Fund areas were also accepted into our maintenance including 1.12 acres, 88 trees and 678 shrubs. The combined total is 9.18 acres with 229 trees and 1,349 shrubs. In addition, four parcels of developer maintained streetscape totaling 8.29 acres with 72 trees and 2,764 shrubs were entered into 365 day maintenance periods. These locations will become our responsibility to maintain following conclusion of their maintenance period next year. Guest Reservations Busy, very busy, best describes the number of reservations for the month of May. Comfortable temperatures afforded many opportunities to visit one of our park locations. We experienced 286 reservations with an estimated attendance of 73,669 persons. This was a 35% increase in number of reservations and 221% increase in attendance over a very busy April. PARK DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Earth moving work resumed at Rio Vista Park. Work is concentrating on establishing final grading of lakes and connecting stream. Discharge tube from the westerly lake back into Kern River is installed as well. Jack Turman initiated contact with Parks Division regarding completing phase II of Stone Creek Park. This 2.6 acre project is proposed to include a ¼ size basketball court, restrooms, picnic areas, trees and an open turf area. 3/2001- City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Park Construction and Facilities Planner 8/2000-3/2001 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Park Supervisor II 1/2000~8/2000 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Administrative Aid (Temporary) 3/98-12/99 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita, CA Project Manager 1987-3/98 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Park Supervisor II 1986-1987 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Park Supervisor I 1984-1986 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA P/W Construction Inspector I&II. 1983 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Survey Party Chief. 1982 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Engineering Aid II 1981 City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA Engineering Aid I As a little history, there is a common misconception that I have been responsible for all park planning activities for the city for many years. This is not the case. In fact the city had a Park Planner position in the planning department in the early 90's. Obviously, it was not me. My recollection is that the Park Planner did not support certain activities of the Parks division well, such as plan check and inspection so it was reclassed to Associate Planner keeping future and long rang planning duties in planning and the parks division created the Park Technician position for technical support to current planning activities, inspection, and plan check. The misconception comes from the fact that I have supervised the Park Technician position as one of ten to fifteen other positions I was responsible for at the same time as a Park Supervisor II. B A K E R S F ! E L D MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Dir DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Debris at 1100 block L Street - Council Referral No. 479 ICouncilmember Carson requested staff check the alley in the 1100 block of L Street for debris problem which may be a health issue. Code enforcement investigated the above location. There is a vacant apartment complex located at 1111 L Street. On June 2, 2003, the property owner was mailed a violation notice for an open vacant structure, overgrown weeds, junk, trash and debris. The property failed to respond to notices by mail and by telephone. The violations were abated by the City of Bakersfield under contract on June 6, 2003. B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Direc~~ DATE: June 9, 2003 SUBJECT: Weed problem on Madison Street - Council Referral No. 480 ICouncilmember Carson requested staff check into the grass and weed problem on Madison Street near the church. Code enforcement investigated the above referral. Two properties near the Peoples Missionary Baptist Church located at 1451 Madison Street were found to have a weed problem. One property is located adjacent to the church and is owned by the City of Bakersfield. The property was disked prior to the investigation; however, the Parks Department is going to clean up the sidewalk area. The second property is located on the southeast comer of Madison and Nina Streets. A 7-day violation notice was mailed to the property owner to abate the weeds. B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services D DATE: June 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Wall on Main Plaza - Council Referral No. 487 Councilmember Couch requested staff provide a status report on the repair of the wall on Main Plaza, just north of the Promenade. The hole in the wall still exists. On June 5, 2003, code enforcement contacted Mr. Lee Jamieson regarding the wall. It was determined that his company was responsible to repair the hole in the wall. Mr. Jamieson has agreed to repair the wall within two to three weeks. B A K E R $ F I E L D MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services DATE: June 6, 2003 SUBJECT: 4510 Steeplechase - Council Referral #491 Councilmember Couch requests code enforcement investigate construction (possibly a fence) at [ 4510 Steeplechase which is blocking view of drivers. Code Enforcement Officer Turk investigated the above complaint along with Ryan Starbuck of Public Works. No line of sight or any other violations were observed. The property appears to be in compliance with existing ordinances. B A K E R S F I E L D ~; ~ ....... ' .JUN I 0 2003 M E M 0 RA ND UM ~i ~"" '~':"' ..... '!::: ' TO: ALAN TANDY, OITY MANAGEIR ..~ ~ FIROM: dAOK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVlOES DIIREO DATE: dune 9, 2008 8UBdEOT:. NW PIROMENADE 8OREENIN~ Ooun~il ~elerr~l No. COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED JACK HARDISTY RESPOND TO THE NEED FOR SCREENING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTHWEST PROMENADE. DOES IT MEET REQUIREMENT OF PCD? JACK TO CONTACT LEE JAMIESON TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANYTHING HE/WE CAN DO. LOOK INTO HAVING MORE SHRUBS, TREES, OR OTHER SCREENING. Staff was requested by Councilmember Couch to review the landscaping and screening along the north side of the Northwest Promenade along Granite Falls Drive. The developer, Lee Jamieson, has complied with the conditions concerning landscaping along Granite Falls Drive as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council which includes turf and oleander trees. Staff has been in contact with Mr. Jamieson regarding possible enhancement of this landscaping to increase the screening of buildings and loading areas from Granite Falls Drive. One option is to let the oleanders grow more into a hedge rather than prune as a tree. Other options include the planting of additional shrubs between the oleanders or adding shrubs along the parking/loading areas near the buildings. Because much of this area is subject to restrictions by P.G. & E. as it is within their high voltage power line easement, there may be limitations to what can be permitted. Staff will be working with Mr. Jamieson to determine if these or other options are feasible. JH:djl CC: Rhonda Smiley, Office Administrator/Public Relations P:\CCReferral\Ref459.doc