Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/2001 BAKERSFIELD Alan~Tandi,~C~~r David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Staff: Alan Christensen Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Special Meeting on Monday, July 9, 2001 6:00 p.m. Council Chamber - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. ADOPT MAY 14, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Transportation Development Fees 1. Presentation by Public Works Department 2. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle stated the Transportation Impact Fee is proposed to be increased by 6.7% to reflect changes in the Construction Cost Index from 1997 to 2000. The ordinance covering the Transportation Development Fee Program provides for this increase to the fees; however, there have not been any increases for several years. Staff is also proposing the fee adjustment be made automatically each year in the future to reflect changes in the Construction Cost Index and this language has been added to the proposed ordinance. Staff has been in contact with representatives of the Building Industry Association (BIA), and the BIA is in support of the proposed increases to the fee schedule and also the automatic yearly adjustments. Staff recommended adoption of the fee schedule with the increases and adoption of the proposed ordinance with the change to include automatic yearly adjustments to reflect changes in the Construction Cost Index. FILE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, July 9, 2001 Page -2- It was discussed that the cost of the improvements will also increase to be consistent with the higher fee and this will enable more credit back to developers who build facilities on the Transportation Impact Fee List, as well as collect a fee more in line with actual costs. The Committee thanked staff for their work and unanimously approved staff's recommendation and forwarding the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and the ordinance with the proposed language changes to the City Council for adoption. B, URS Greiner Study 1. Presentation by Public Works Department 2, Discussion and Committee Recommendation Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle provided an update. Approximately one year ago, Kern COG, CalTrans, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield commissioned URS Greiner Corporation to do a systems study for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. It was a systems approach to study different transportation elements and how to connect the facilities, including the westside freeway/Route 58 project to State Route 99, the Centennial Transportation Corridor through downtown and on to Highway 178, and other various roadways such as State Route 204/Golden State Avenue. URS staff has been working with a Project Development Team including staff from Kern COG, CalTrans, the County and the City. There have been public outreaches to receive input from various groups and citizens throughout the entire prOcess. The team came up with 21 alternatives to start with and that number has been narrowed down to five. Each alternative was reviewed for consistent elements to include and/or improve Oak and 24th Streets, 24th Street east to F Street, State Route 99 and 58 interchange, and the Hageman flyover. Alternatives were studied for cost, but also for disruption to the community. Reasons for alternatives being recommended for elimination included passing through environmental sensitive and habitat areas, excessive cost, taking of large areas of. residential and/or commercial land, and connections that are not full-freeway interchanges. Mr. LaRochelle gave a presentation using video and actual board-mounted maps of the alternatives being recommended for elimination and the alternatives that are being recommended for further consideration. Dennis Bainbridge asked questions regarding the alignments and also why Alternative 15 costs more than Alternative 6. Committee Chair Couch responded Alternative 15 is more costly as in includes 38 miles of freeway versus 25 for Alternative 6. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, July 9, 2001 Page -3- Dennis Fox spoke regarding the freeway system and in favor of Alternative 15 as it utilizes Seventh Standard Road. Burton Ellison for Westpark Homeowners Association spoke against Alternative 9 and requested that it be eliminated because the route bisects a stable, well-maintained, middle-class neighborhood and commercial area. It destroys 400 homes and many businesses. He spoke in support of Alternative 6 instead. Committee member Maggard assured the audience that Alternative 9 will not be recommended by the Committee. Herman Ruddell for the Downtown Business and Property Owners Associations (DBA) made comments and suggestions about the freeway system and explained while the DBA has chosen not to make specific recommendation of one freeway alternative over another, they are committed to assessing and evaluating each proposal in terms of level of service to and impact on downtown. Pam Baugher thanked staff for coming up with the conclusion that Westpark is not the right place to put a freeway. Donald Lora spoke regarding the freeway study and in support of Alternative 15. Richard Watkins spoke regarding the freeway study and the alignment he liked best is not one of the five being considered. He expressed concerns about starting the construction of the east-west freeway on the west end. Lisa Pollard spoke about making Rosedale Highway into a freeway down in the ground with retaining walls and frontage roads on the sides. There was discussion on the length of time it will take to build a system and as all the plans exceed our known budget, it is dependent'on the availability of Federal and State funding. It could take up to 30 years to complete. However, if the City, County, the region and local community support the plan and present a common front to our State and Federal Legislators, they could sponsor special legislation on our behalf and the time could be shortened in half. Cash flow is being studied and before the Joint meeting on July 23rd, staff will provide a reasonable plan that will show buildable, usable segments in a systematic approach. Staff suggested the parkway alignment between Highway 99 and Heath Road be chosen as a starting point because a lot of the environmental work has already been done by the State and this would allow for starting the next environmental document for the construction aspect. At the same time, within the current fiscal year, once the project study report is done, the prOposed plan is to put it in the State Transportation Improvement Program and begin the environmental process. Funding is already in place, almost $16 million. $2 million was used for the study, which leaves $14 million to go all the way through the environmental process and even be able to purchase URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, July 9, 2001 Page -4- some land. Available funding currently through 2014 is $600 million and would complete the parkway segment between Heath Road and Highway 178 within the two, 7-year funding cycles. Construction could be completed by 2017. It was noted the $600 million included an 8-lane freeway instead of a parkway, so there would be some savings. For improvements to 24th Street, the present plan provides for a depressed 6-lane arterial that would be like a channel with sidewalls and frontage roads on both sides for local access. There will be bridges to connect the north side of 24th to the south side of 24th. Present estimates are $40 million for this improvement between Oak and F Streets. At this point in time it is not a cut and cover tunnel, which could be done but would add another $20 million to this segment. Computer renderings should be available in about two months. It was discussed that we are looking at a proposal by the consultant and this system has not been designed as yet, so changes can be made. In a future meeting, the locations of planned property acquisitions (approximately 350 residential and 520 commercial) will be detailed by parcel. It was discussed that the alignment for 7th Standard Road could be moved about one-half mile north of 7th Standard in more of an open area to be able to miss the residents that have expressed concerns. The plans show a corridor, which can be moved and adjusted during the environmental process. It was explained that some widening work on 7th Standard Road already has some funding. Because this alignment has non-metro area space, the Committee suggested perhaps we would be able to present a case to get monies from the non-urban portion of the split to be used for the freeway work for 7th Standard. There was discussion regarding the recharge ponds and plans to mitigate the ponds being crossed with other land and water at approximately a two or three to one ratio to recharge another system. Additional safeguards are being provided for drainage containment, so any kind of spill would be contained and taken off site through sealed drain systems. This is included in the $600 million. There was discussion regarding the oil refinery and soil contamination. It was explained that soil samples were taken at different depths for the proposed sewer trunk line on the north side of the proposed parkway and very little or no oil contamination was found. There was some crude oil found, which is not considered hazardous and easier to remove. Committee member Maggard stated that he is in favor of Alternative 15, but would like further discussion at another meeting on the phasing, particularly the downtown element. ~ URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, July 9, 2001 Page -5- Committee Chair Couch stated the total cost for Alternative 15 is approximately $1.5 billion and he supports Alternative 15. He expressed the Committee should pick a plan and go with it and work on the funding and phasing subsequently. Committee Chair Couch stated he felt it would be very important to start on a section that will actually connect and we know could be built and used. He requested Public Works staff provide him with the cost of starting the parkway at Allen Road to Mohawk, complete Mohawk north to the Hageman Flyover with improvements to State Route 204, and also the cost of 24th Street improvements from Oak to F Street with a cut and cover tunnel. Committee member Benham agreed that Alternative 15 is preferred, but expressed concerns with the 24th Street aspect and has questions on how the Centennial Corridor will actually be realized. She requested that the High School District be contacted for their input. The Committee unanimously voted to eliminate Alternatives 3, 9 and 13 from any further consideration. And further, the Committee unanimously agreed that Alternative 15 is the preferred choice and approved making that recommendation to the City Council and for Public Works staff to convey the recommendation to the Project Development Team meeting on Tuesday, July 10th. There was discussion that the July 18th City Council meeting agenda is very long, so the Committee will not be placing their recommendation to Council on that agenda. There is a Joint City Council/Board of Supervisor meeting on Monday, July 23rd at 5:30 p.m. and the Metropolitan Freeway Systems Study is on that agenda. 5. COMMrn'EE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Urban Development Committee Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham; and Mike Maggard Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; and Public Works Civil Engineer Ted Wright. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHl~Urban Dev2001\ud01jul09summary.wpd