Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1999 BAKERSFIELD Randy Rowles, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. PARK DEVELOPMENT/PARK LAND FEES ORDINANCE UPDATE - Hardisty B. FREEWAY UPDATE - Rojas 6. NEW BUSINESS A. KERN TRANSPORTATION FOUNDATION CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ONE-HALF CENT SALES TAX - Rojas B. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - GREATER BAKERSFIELD 2020 VISION C. DECELERATION LANE STANDARDS - Rojas D. 1999 PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~John\UrbanDev~99Feb17agen JWS:jp DRAFT BAKERSFIELD ' ' ' ' ~ Kevin McDermott, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles Staff: John W. Stinson Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARy REPORT SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, September 28, 1998 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:30 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Randy Rowles Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith 2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 20, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None - 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE Jack LaRochelle gave a bdef update on the status of freeway projects and distributed a report of current activities. He noted that the EIR on the Kern River Freeway was URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, September 28, 1998 Page -2- completed. Councilmember McDermott requested that the anticipated start dates for construction of Mohawk Street and the Kern River Freeway be made a part of future freeway status reports. It was also requested that the Project Study Report for the Crosstown freeway begin as soon as possible. The Committee also requested that the status of the East Beltway be included in future reports as some related activity is anticipated. B. PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE ORDINANCE Jack Hardisty presented the Committee with a discussion paper regarding the ordinance changes requested by the Committee at their last meeting. It was requested that the discussion paper be sent to all interested parties and that a draft ordinance be brought back to the Committee. Comments were made regarding a requirement that a certain minimum amount of parkland and/or amenities be required to be eligible for up to a 50% credit against applicable parkland or development fees. It was suggested that staff develop a list of typical qualifying amenities that would meet such a criteria. C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) APPROVAL PROCESS Staff presented a draft ordinance revising the P.U.D. approval process to provide for more flexibility to make certain changes which are not minor in nature, but are not a significant change to a project. Currently these changes must follow the cumbersome zone change process. Instead a hearing would be conducted before the Planning Commission. Minor changes would continue to be approved by the Planning Director and significant changes would continue to require a zone change review. The Committee supports approval of the ordinance. D. SPHERE OFINFLUENCE UPDATE Staff gave an update on the recent action taken by LAFCO denying the expansion of the City's sphere of influence. Staff was uncertain about the reason for the denial as little comment was made by the LAFCO board other than they were "uncomfortable" with the City's request. Staff indicated that the application could be resubmitted with or without modifications for further consideration by LAFCO within 30 days of the previous action. The Committee recommended that staff make a request for reconsideration of the sphere of influence and eliminate some of the areas originally submitted which include agricultural zoning. This would leave primarily land with urban type uses within the sphere request. Resubmittal also reinforces the City's legal position in the future. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, September 28, 1998 Page -3- 6. NEW BUSINESS A. SIGN ORDINANCE Staff presented proposed minor changes to the Sign Ordinance to the Committee for their review. The Committee supported approval of the proposed ordinance changes. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 1:30 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council jws:jp Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Chief Assistant City Attorney Bob Sherry and Assistant City Attorney Carl Hernandez (during Item C), Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Planning Director Stan Grady, and Public Works Engineering Services Manager Jack LaRochelle. Public: Michael Greene, Bryan Todd, Laura Snideman, and Renee D. Nelson. PARK LAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE CREDIT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.80.020 and ADDING SECTION 15.80.125 TO TITLE FIFTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARK LAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE CREDIT FOR MULTIPLE-SERVICE MEDICAL AND RECOVERY CARE FACILITIES. WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield initiated this ordin; Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Bakersfield Municipal Code re ~d dedication in-lieu fee credit for multiple-service medical and recovery WHEREAS, the ordinance was found to General Rule, Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Impl Jly followed by city staff, and this Council; and WHEREAS, as currently required in this living residential units are subject to dedication of land at 2.5 acres payment of an in-lieu fee; and WHEREAS, the Urban Develc of Council considered whether to allow a reduced amount of the paid by independent living residential units at their August an ptem ;; and WHEREAS, said staff' )ursue a similar ordinance to allow a reduced park land dedication WHEREAS Is the City Council approve an addition and ami to Cha of the Vlunicipal Code allowing credit towards the and recovery care facilities; and sai~ is of the opinion that such independent living units as part of a med[ care facility could be considered as having a lesser impa~ comparable open space and recreational amenitie,, and Council has considered and hereby makes ihe following fin~ of the foregoing recitals, incorporated herein, are hereby found to be The project is exempt from CEQA in accordance to State CEQA sction 15061(b)(3), general rule. 3. This ordinance is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section E is hereby added to Section 15.80.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: E. "Multiple-service medical and recovery care facility" means a facility that includes skilled nursing beds, assisted living, and independent living apartments, described as follows: 1. Skilled nursing is commonly known as nursing homes providing around the clock nursing care staffed by licensed administrators, nurses, nurse assistants, registered dieticians, directors and staff development and education. Skil generally offer care one step below a ge 2. Assisted living provides a madly to serve the ambulatory, but frail cli~ a resid~ where residents receive' services and health care. ass r more activities such as pl hot preparation, eating, shop: lng and bathing level of care is a median between le and independent (congregate) living. 3. Independent livir g ate care, are a self-contained a and has supportive set lousekeeping, trans ,cial and recreational activities are nts. iN 2. 'Section 15.80. B Code is hereby added to read as follows: 15.80.1 :e Medical and A. wh credit under this section shall submit a letter to the ~irector, or his designee, pdor to issuance of a building living unit. The letter must specifically request said credit, how the facility meets each of the criteria listed in this section; copy of the floor plan(s), a site plan identifying the recreational and ope pace facilities for credit, including acreage and square footage of said facilitiE nd other reasonable documentation the Development Services Dire~ :~r his designee, may request to make a determination that said credit granted. multiple-service medical care and recovery residential facility may receive a fifty percent (50%) credit on the amount of the park land dedication required for the development provided the project satisfies all of the following cdteda: 1. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, or his designee, that the facility is a multiple-service medical and recovery development that includes skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living care, as defined in Section 15.80.020.E. of this Code; and 2. The facility must have a minimum of 90 units and include a park, open space, gardens or other specially dedicated outdoor area that is "useable" for passive or active recreation activity. The size of the area shall be at least fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of park land dedication required for the development. Areas required by zoning or building ordinances such as yard, setback, landscaping, parking, and drainage or detention basins may not be used as any part of the open space, gardens or other outdoor activity area proposed to the requirements of this section; and 3. The facility provides for continuing reservation of the recreation open space by covenants, restrictions or other instrument a by and Planning Director. The recorded may not be amended without pri C. At the option of the applicant, the full fee, which include said credit described in paragraph B at the time of issuance of the building permit for any independE uent to issuance of said building permit, the applicant refund of up to fifty percent of the fee paid, sub le section. If the Development Services Dire, ee, the project is 'eligible for refund in the amo~ a refund shall be issued to the applicant or said request must be made within three (3) s of of Occupancy for the subject building, time period, this credit becomes void, and be D. The appeal pi for I be as follows: of the ent Services Director, or his designee, ~y~ng a shall become final if no appeal to the ;sion is filed and payment of the filing fee is made within such decision. An appeal must be in writing and Commission in care of the Planning Director, hue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. 2. of an appeal, the Planning Director shall set the matter for h, pon notice to the appellant, and affected interested persons. 3. hearing shall be held within 30 days after the date of filing the ~peal unless the appellant consents to a continuance beyond the initial 30 days. Within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and conclusive. 5. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the hearing will not be conducted and the decision of the Development Services Director, or his designee, shall stand. 3 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ...... O00 ...... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, SMITH, MCDERMi ,SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK rk of the Council of the APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of' City of APPR( OFFICE O~ HERNANDEZ ~nt City attor JENG January 29, 1999 4 O R A N D U M February 9, 1999 TO: JOHN STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: ~ STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PARK DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND PARK LAND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS These two items are scheduled for the February 12, 1999 Urban Development Committee. I have enclosed copies of the proposed ordinance amendments for your use. Please note that the park development ordinance has been changed to require a minimum of 90 dwelling units to qualify for the credit. This change was made to be consistent with the proposed park land ordinance amendment. cc: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director je S:~JENG\mjspk.wpd ! !CITY PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE CREDIT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.82.020 and ADDING SECTION 15.82.065 TO TITLE FIFTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE CREDIT FOR MULTIPLE-SERVICE MEDICAL AND RECOVERY CARE FACILITIES. WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield' initiated this ordin 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Bakersfield Municipal Code regardi fee credit for multiple-service medical and recovery care faciliti~ WHEREAS, the ordinance waSfound to Jant to General Rule, Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Imp[ Jly followed by city staff, and this Council; and WHEREAS, as currently required in this living residential units are subject to payment of said fee; and WHEREAS, the Urban Develo fittee of considered whether to allow a reduced amount of the to :1 by independent living residential units at their August and WHEREAS, said Council approve an addition and amendment to Chapter 15.82 ;Id Mur Code allowing credit towards the park development fee for mul care facilities; and $ lion that such independent living units as part of~ :ii and re facility could be considered as having a lesser' [ parable open space and recreational amenitie= the has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. recitals, incorporated herein, are hereby found to be., true~ correct. 2. project is exempt from CEQA in accordance to State CEQA lines Section ;1(b)(3), general rule. This ordinance is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the CounCil of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION '1. Section E is hereby added to Section 15.82.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: E. "Multiple-service medical and recovery care facility" means a facility that includes skilled nursing beds, assisted living, and independent living apartments, described as follows: 1. Skilled nursing is commonly known as nursing homes providing around the clock nursing care staffed by licensed administrators, nurses, nurse assistants, registered dieticians, activity directors and staff development and education. Skilled nursing facilities generally offer care one step below a general acute hospital. 2. Assisted living provides a level of personal care ~ to serve the ambulatory, but frail client in a residential where residents receive individualized pportive services and health care, such ~nce in one or more activities such as ework, meal preparation, eating, sho g The level care is a median ho~ (congregate) living. 3. Independent living units, as congregate are a self-contained apartment ~ a kitchen, and has supportive services such~ housekeeping, transportation, nursing, and recreational activities wt :h are e for Section 15.82.065 of the. is hereby added to read as follows: 15.82.065 Pa~ A. a ;r this section shall submit a letter to the or his designee, pdor to issuance of a building living unit. The letter must specifically request said meets each of the cdteda listed in this floor plan(s), a site plan identifying the recreational for credit, including acreage and square footage of said facilitiE reasonable documentation the Development Services Director Inee, may request to make a determination that said credit '~ may be B. Each dwelling unit satisfying the following cdteda shall pay fifty §0%) of the amount of the adopted park development fee for ~dent living units as part of a multiple-service medical and recovery care f: 1. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director, or his designee, that the facility is a multiple-service medical and recovery development that includes skilled nursing, assisted living and independent living care, as defined in Section 15.82.020.E. of this Code; and 2. The facility provides a recreation room, open space, gardens, and other outdoor activity area with size sufficient to reasonably accommodate the expected number of independent living residents. The open space area shall be reasonably adaptable for use as park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of the open space. Areas required by zoning or building ordinances such as yard, setback, landscaping, parking, and drainage or detention basins may not be used as any part of the open space, gardens or other outdoor activity area proposed to satisfy the requirements of this section; and 3. The facility provides for continuing maintenance of and of the recreation facilities and open space by agreement, covenants, restrictions or other instrur e City Attomey and Planning Director. The with the land and may not be amended without e City. C. At the option of the applicant, the full ~ said credit described in paragraph B paid at the ance of the building permit for any ~it. Subsequent ance of said building permit, the applicant may st ~n request for refund of up to fifty percent of the fee paid, subject d in this section. If the Development Services Director, or his s the project is eligible for refund in the am~ in th~ refund shall be issued to the applicant or a uest must be made within three (3) 3f Occupancy for the subject building. If no period, this credit becomes void, and no D. The appeal [ 3n shal as follows: 1. The .=rvices Director, or his designee, grar become final if no appeal to the payment of the filing fee is made within date decision. An' appeal must be in writing and 'lanning Commission in care of the Planning Director, 15 je, Bakersfield, CA 93301. an appeal, the Planning Director shall set the matter for notice to the appellant, and affected interested persons. 3. ring shall be held within 30 days after the date of filing the a unless the appellant consents to a continuance beyond the initial ~S. Within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final and conclusive. 5. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the Planning Commission headng, the hearing will not be conducted and the decision of the Development Services Director, or his designee, shall stand. SECTION 3. 3 This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective .not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ....... -000 ...... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, SMITH, MCDERMO'I-r, NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER CITY CLERK ar io Clerk of the Council of the ;Id APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfi, APPR to form: OFFICE OF BY: CAI IERNANDEZ City Attorney 4 CONDUCTING A TRANSPORTATION· SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BA£KGROUND~_ .. Getting voters to pass-~ tax hike for transportation purposes is very difficult. A great deal of p. reparation must take place well in advance of putting a measure (or measures) before voters. Voters are cynical a.nd'want t~ know that their tax dollars will be used exactly for the purposes they dean as important. The type, amount and duration of the taxation are also very cn~cil elements of a successhd tax increase effort. We believe the only way you can determine if sufficient support exists to wager a tax increase campaign is by undertaking an assessment program such as the one detailed below. SURVEY PROGRAM POLLING Developing a st'tong ballot label (~e 75-word description that the voter reads when casting his or her vote, frequently referred to. incorrectly as ballot "language") and the creation of strong ballot arg~ments and rebuttals is frequently the 'most important boost a ballot initiative campaign can receive. This is especially true when funds to run an aggressive campaign are scarce. A public opinion poll is the only way to develop these important elements. Voters are more likely to increase their taxes if four criteria are present: O They perceive a need for the measure. ~ The project~ or services of the proposed measure aze what voters really want. The method or amount of taxation is reasonable and appropriate for the proposed projects or service. ~ .~EB. 8. 1999 10: _P, OAM TO~.I~,t,q_E~ID NO. 798 P. 3 '~ PI~OI~$AL TO Kt~RN What is promised in the measure will be delivered by those administering the funds. To determine whether or not these criteria exist, a series of questions will be developed to answer the following: ~.rhich projects do voters consider important enough to be part of the planT'- ~- · wRat safeguards are required to assure ~;oters that projects and services will be delivered? ' .' · Which argu~nents best support a campaign for passage of the measure? ": = · Who is likely togupport -- or oppose -- the measure? · Which election -- Special, Primary, General--best increases the likelihood of passage? · What impact would an "anti" campaign have on the measure? · How do transportation issues rank among other issues of importance to voters? · I-Iow do voters react to potential ballot language and the individual elements of the plan? '- - What factors or inducement~ could be added to the measure to enhance its chances of passage? · What are the demographic profiles of potential supporters and opponents? Our work over the past two years has led us to a new way of under,king all polling for clients who wish to put ballot measures before voters. During the Santa Clara "A + B = Traffic Relief" campaign, we conducted five polls and five focus groups to tweak the tax language sufficiently to gain passage. Our polling I indicated tl~e extra research gained us five percentage points. On Election Day, ~ the tax measure gained 52 perc~rtt. We have devised a polling strategy, which t compresses process. ! Rather than a single poi1, which allows one to gain a good idea of the el~nn~nt~ of ~ a ballot measure, we have devised a public opinion polling strategy consis~g of ~ two polls. FEB. '..q. '199.~ ICi: ~IAM TOI,II'ISEI'-I_r: I~lO. 798 P. 4 PI~?OSAL TO K~IU~I COUNTY The first, a benchmark survey of 20 minutes duration, allows us to understand the tmderlying issues, arguments and messages that lead to a successful ballot measure. This sample can be split into two equal sizes, which allows us to ~est alternatives and refine the product. This poll will provide the information, which will allow com..p~?hensible fact sheets to be developed. We could also test the impact of third-party endorsements on the measure. This latter question set will be important in deciding who should sign the ballot argument and rebuttal. The second poll is a short 10-minute survey in which actual language -- derived from the benchmark survey -- is tested. Frequently during this second poll, the po!!_~rtg sample is split'again so two versions of the measure can be tested. ~ allows for some flexibility in getting the language "just right." Our two-poll strategy does not increase the overall cost.of the polling. We have developed this approach because an insufficient amount of information can be derived from a single poll. Most successful tax increase mea_sures inhabit the 51 to 55 percentage range, so getting absolutely correct language is critical. This is particularly important in the post-Proposition 218 era where the increased number of ballot measures on local ballots will require strong, easily understandable ballot language. METHODOLOGY The sample will be drawn from the Kern County voter file main~ by the county. Only registered voters will be tested. The sample will also accurately reflect the proportion of various voter sub-group types with/n the county. 1;or example, gender, party, ethn/city, age, education, family income and housing status will all be presented as cross-tabulations. The po~ will also be subdivided by geographical area. Any area that comprises no less than one-sixth of the total universe can be broken out into a cross- tabulation based on the sample size. We recommend that this poll provide cross- tabs which include the supervisorial. In addition to testing the opinions of voters who range in their propensity to vote from high to low, we will also look at the correlation between other important factors or sets of questions. R~NDOM SAMPLE Survey respondents will be .selected from voter registration polls using a stratification method that will prov/de a random selection of persons from all FEB. 8. 1999 l l3:01AM TOI4h~SEND PI0.798 P.5 Pg.0~"O$~.L'I'O KiiRN COtlNl'Y possible combinations of variables which include gender, party, age, zip code and household party type. ~ addition, we will provide the following demographic information about respondents of the survey: a. Party affiliation b Ag c. Home o~n~rship (owner/renter) d. ¢ g. Length of f~sidency .' h. Other demographic i.~ormation The margin of error irt the ca~e of a sample si2e of 600 will be plu~ or minm 4.2 percent. DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE ,~ explained above, we will te~t varia.n~ of ~e ballot lab,l to gain the ~x:mge~t language. Additionally, we will make r~ommendatior~ on ~aftin~ of pot'~tial ballot argumen~ and rebuttals. SURVEY RESULTS We will provide the following~ · The prelRn~ary sumey r~ul~ and first draft analysis will ¢omi~t of the questiormaim with survqr re~ome~ listed gross percentages immediately adjacent to each question. In addition, there will be a brief na.~tive outlining the t~ends of the survey results. · The final and in-depth survey analysis will be compiled in a hardbound book. It employs two types of rankings-- percentage to the whole, which will be marked with a percent sign, and a rating system, wh/ch combines percentage of the whole and---intensity of respome. Using a maflaematical equation, th/s rating system f'actors in people who did not answer the21u~tion or responded "don't know." These ranking will be used in each~oss-tabulation, and all of the subgrgups mentioned ab.ove (gend~, p ..a.rty, ethnicity, geographic ~cation,, etc.) will be analyzed as a cross-tabulation. In addition, .arty other voter subgroup type that the coal/tion wishes us t6' s_tudy that is six percent of the sample can be analyzed as a cross-tabulation.' · An analysis of the survey, including identification of the elements that should be included in the expenditure plan and a strategy for adoption of the transportation expenditure plan. · Recommended ballot label language. -~. ·_~-~'-. ,~,. ;. ~ :.',,.. ,... ,-'- Kern ~rc/nsporic/iion Foundc/iion : ~,..-.,,-.. r, - -,'-,~-. "'"'~'"~';'~'"';q'""""""""~ ~e"re Mov/'np For~v~r~ ~,, ~ ~'-'~" . ,.. ~.,~.., Public Works Department Atto: Raul Rojas 1501 Tmxmn Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Reference: One-half Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Gentlemen, The Kern Transportation Foundation is exploring the feasibility of placing before the voters a one-half cent sales tax proposition for transportation, including funding for road and highway maintenance. Before this is accomplished, the Foundation needs to obtain the services of a consultant to Conduct a Transportation Sales Tax Assessment (Public Opinion Survey). The cost of the survey is approximately $45,000. The County of Kern, Gity __of-Itakersfietd~ KemCOG, Golden Empire Transit, Kern Transportation Foundation and hopefully the Kern County Superintendent of Schools should be participants in the endeavor. The Kern Transportation Foundation is a non-profit corporation and will administer the agreement with the consultant. It is requested your agency assist in the funding of this survey in the amount $10,000. Your assistance in this very important issue is greatly appreciated. Very Truly Yours, Gary. A. Blackburn, Chairman P.O. Box 417 Bakersfield, California 93302-0417 Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision Summary Prepared for Alan Tandy, December 14, 1998 Who we are: · The Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce convened a set of summits of those broad-based community organizations who had invested time and resources in community planning or in the development of principles for community growth. · Two summits were held, in June and September, where representatives of these groups participated in the development, through cooperation and consensus, .of commonly agreed upon principles for the future development of our community. Outside professionals facilitated the process. · The organizations, whose signatures appear on the endorsement page actively participated in the process and have taken formal action to support the adopted principles. These organizations are broadly based and reflect the diversity of our community, representing many thousands of people. Summit Results - 2020 Vision. These community development principles represent an initialization of the development of a long-term strategic, integrated economic plan for Bakersfield. The three key principles are: · The need for a business environment that retains and attracts business and industry and improves their long term viability. · The need to prioritize infrastructure investment to support ~rowth and as a catalyst for private investment. ~ · The need for an integrated approach to a comprehensive metropolitan economic plan that incorporates consistency. Requested Action: 1. Adopt the Principles: Read the document. We trust that you will support it when you do. Then we request that you adopt the principles, and incorporate them in all strategic planning decisions of your body. 2. City and County Officials Work Together: The theme throughout the summits was the need for city and county to work closely together to develop a metropolitan economic plan. 3. Hire a Economic Consultant: We want you to work collaboratively with us and other governmental groups in hiring, directing, and monitoring an expert, outside economic consultant to develop the following: · a community needs assessment · a list of valuable ~:ommunity assets · input from the groups who participated in the summits for additional ideas and concerns · input from other individuals and groups in the community who are also stakeholders in the future of the community. · this is not a land use plan, it is a economic plan, a vision the community can buy in to and support. 4. Establish a Lead Group: This has been an extensive and exciting process to date, but this is just the first step. We urge you to act quickly and establish a group to support, monitor, and move this process forward. This group should be small with significant representation from the private sector as well as the city and county. We will be available to support you in achieving this planned direction. In closure, the group has concluded that there is a fundamental need for change in the process. We need to look forward so as to establish a community vision. The development ora vision has to be broad-based, collaborative, and memorialized in a formal way. We look forward to working with you as an active member of the process. GREATER BAKERSFIELD 2020 VISION The following organizations are pleased to have participated in the development the Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision and offer their support and endorsement. I~enneth Svend~en \ ~ Sheila M. Henderson AIA Golden Empire Architects Bakersfield A.~sociation of REALTORS ISale Hawley ' Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Kern Transportation Foundation L'~ura Snidemant ~.e~o~. BI3_ of Kern County ~hilipFiel~ ' ~ J~o~F_allgatt.'~_ ___ / / Kern County Builders Exchange ~man Growth Coalition/ Association Martin Castro Steve Arita - -'"" Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Western States Petroleurv., Association League of Women Voters ISSUED DECEMBER I, 1998 APPENDIX A SUMMIT PARTICIPANT LIST The Communin.' Developmem Summits xvere devised and sponsored by the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce as a means of bnn'g..ing together those groups or organizatious that had inv'ested time and resources in the creation of community developmem principles: 'the Summits were prot'ession~y facilitated and the key objectives were: · Obtain general consensus on common principles for the development of our communitv: and · Discuss how best to implement those principles in a metropolitan plan. PARTICIPANTS INCLUDED REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS: .kmencan Farm/and Trust Bakerslield :~sociation of Re:.iltors BL~ of Kern Count,,, Central Labor Council Downtown Business Association Golden Empire .~ch. itects Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Independent Oil Producers :tssociation Kern Count3.' Builders Exchange Kern Count,,' Board of Trade Kern Counn.' Contractors Xssociation Kern Count3.' Farm Bureau Kern Count5.' Superintendent of Schools Kern Count3.' Taxpayers .kssociation Kern Count).' Transportation Foundation Kern Counp,.' Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Kern Econormc Development Corporation Lea.oue of \Vomen Voters North of the River Chamber of Commerce Old Town Kern Project Clean .tlr Sierra Club Smart Growth Coa. Lition Western States Petroleum .Cssociation REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTi(:::IPATING ORGANIZATIONS GBC(:C COI"II"IUNITY LEADERSHIP (::OUN(:::iL 5:eve .trim Jack ConJe',' Don .Iotmson K,~.n :,~endsen Lores Barb~ch Bren, Dezember Ed tlickman :lan'm .~.rmas Jim Creuoi (;rea Kirk:~amck Bt:an todd Shen'l Barb~ch (:hns Frank (;torte 51arun Louts Barbich Brent Dezemoer %lan' .tnn l. ockhan B~ii Trao,' Richard Beene Bruce I:reeman Ste,'e Ruggenberg 5her,'t Ba.rbich Frank Dommuuez Sieve ~,larun ?,like l'urmpsee,.1 Dr. Kelly Blamon Berme l'lerman Ray ~;'atson Dr, Ke[l~,' Blanton John Fallgauer Ro~er ?,lclntosh lorra,ne I'neer Ken Carter Susan tlersoer~er Greg Bynum Phil Fields .lack Pandoi .Ir. Li:~da L'ram Ken Carter Chris Frank Jerr/"Randall Rav Watson ?,lartin Ca.stro Bruce I.'reeman Ilerm:m Ruddel.l Roy ~x'~,ygand SUI¥11¥11T FACiLITATIONTEAI~ Lois Chaney 3.nn Gutcher ?,lichaei Sansin~ Dave ~ite Delia Jeanene (:h~e Berme Ilerman Ray Simmons ?,lan :.me Wilson Business Relm,onstups Consultants Joe {:lark Susan nersbero, er Bill Slocomb Pat Sale,' Caroline Close Ed liickman Laura Snideman Pat CoLlins John Irlill Ed Spauldinr, Pat S'aley and .xssocmtes PRINCIPLE #1 FOREWORD EU-qlNE~-= =NVIRONMENT ln.lune and September of 1998. extraordinam.' meetings CREATE AN ENVIIRO.,'4MENT WHICH RETAINS AND A]-FRACTS took place xqth over 50 people representin,"` 24 communi~.' BUSINESS AND Ir,;DUSTRY AND IMPROVES THEIR LON(3 org:mizations and business groups in m'o da,,' lot]-, summits TERM VIABILITY. to discuss the future of our communit,,: The'prim'an' obiecti,,e of the attendees was to de,,'etop a common vision fob the future of metropolitan Bakersfield. This vision, developed · Focus on promoting local businesses and local principally through cooperation and consensus, put on entrepreneurshJp. paper the principles that will help define what we `.`.'ant our cin' to become. · Raise tile standard of living b,,' measures such as: - Pro,,'iding work for tile existing ,,vorkforce. and There `.`.'ere three main themes that flo,,,,'ed througilout the - Attracting businesses that pro,,'ide higher paying jobs. de,,'elopment of the principles: and I. The qua[in.' of fife in any community is dependant on a - Providin,2 a broad range of jobs. strong· vibrant gro,,,,'ing economy. · Both local and regional economic development efforts 2. \% ,,'alue the need for balance, understandin-, and co- should be tarzeted to expand opportunities by promoting operation between business, community and' government lobs. impro,,m,-, skills of low-income individuals, addressing and the need to find the common ground and ensure the needs of families, and insuring tile availability of qua. Lin.- consistency, ctfild care. transportation. Liousing and educatioh. 3. Private property owners ha,,'e the right to deterrmne the · Promote .'md expand historically significant industries that lughest and best use of their land. in tlie context of are based on our natural resources, such as mineral. appropriate local governmental policies. Good planning a-.riculture la. nd and ,,vater. protects both pn,,'ate propem.' rights and the ri-.hts of the ° Recognize and utilize e:,dsting and future studies to define greater commumn', tl'~e maior businesses and industries to attract to the Greater Bakersfield m... opolitan area· .xccording to the projections, metropolitan Bakersfield will ·Identifv. main~n and promote greater Bakersfield's · _ _ . competim'e',; ad,,'anta,,e including. '.'row two and one hall' times by the `.'ear '0 '~0 .-Ls ,,ve seek to ' :- · Fro,,,,' our communin- we should seek to enhance our core - .~'ordab!e land competencies. \X'ith fl~is growth ahead oi' us. the summh participants felt it imperatl,,'e to de,,'elop a sound, progressive - Reasonable government regulauons plan to outline ,,`.'hat ,,,,'e `.,,'ant our cin' to become. - Business: Government cooperation The following pnnciples represent the beginning of a - Availabihr,' of transportation. collaborative effort to develop our common interests and build a stronger communin.'. · Promote and expand businesses and industries that create lobs. includin-., but not lim.:ted to. real estate / building. sen'ice industries, transportation and distribution. · The Business Communin' and Go,,'ernment conunue to work together to streamline the process for ne,,,,' or expandin.v, businesses. ' PRINCIPLE #2 PRINCIPLE #3 INFRASTRUCTURE : NT':-'G RATED APPROACH IMPROVE AND i',,'IA[r~TAtN EXISTILIG INFRASTRUCTURE AND ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE" METROPOLITAN PROVIDE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT GROWTH. PLAN THAT INCORPORATES CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES THAT PRIORITIZE INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT PROMOTE SUPPORT CURRENT ANO FUTURE COMMUNITY NEEDS. CULTURAL. EDUCAT:ONAL. BUSINESS AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF (~REATER BAKERSFIELD AS A CATALYST FOR PRIVATE INVESTMEL!T. · The state must reform local government finance and put the county on sound financial basis. · Devise a long-term strate~' to ensure that public investments itl in. frastructure are distributed throughout the Greater · .Adopt and implement a metropolitan approach to the Bakersfield area regardless or' cit3'/count3.' boundaries, deliveQ' of services, polic3.' development, planning, building codes and development standards, with appropriate revenue · Communities should use and invest in technolo~' that sharing, thus eliminating jurisdictional disputes and supports tile abilits' or' local enterprises to succeed, ensuring consistency in applications. improve cMc Ii. re. and provides open access to ini'ormation :md resources. · Development standards between the cits' and counts' should be consistent. · Create processes, including public private partnerships. to prioritize and guide development or' infrastructure. · Provide incentives for infill, redevelopment and moderately higher densit3.: · ),laior transportation routes and systems should be identified :uld set aside before new development occurs. · The plan should include objective, measurable, and goal- driven planning processes. · Ensure a lon~, term reliable water source: for current and future needs. · Qu~' of l.i]'e issues should be considered, e.g.. air qualitT. water, waste management, business en'dronment, etc. · Encoura,oe "concentric" development. ]:::72slrllC!llre l.n,L'l::zc.5, bill 15 .:':'la.m,:,. a;n,~urts. :'.::::r~ az:,.: :~.cr...~u,:r,;.d lac,lilies. ' The plan should provide incentives rather than restrictions. ",t.x'. x',:ller dexel,~n~eEt, consc.,".at:orL C:m;:r~_'ile~sxvt. i,;:!::,:'~.~ iana ~sc. =-c':..nom,c sl~ld,_,s anu m:':"'~ln, c:',:re. :'to. · 'the plan should strive for a liveable lifestyle for all. espe- cially providing the opportunity tbr home ownershir~ for those who want it and access to housing that is affo~'dable. · Be consistent but allow for flexibilits' to address changes over time. NEXT STEP JanuaQ' 1. 1999 Present endorsed Greater Bakersfield 2020 X'ision Report to Ci~' and County elected officials and staff for adoption. February 1. IgC)g Qts' and Count).' implement actions for an integrated metropolitan plan. BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF KERN COUNTY BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313 - 2047 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 805/832-0258 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDER';; January 22, 1999 Alan Tandy, City Manager City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: The Building Industry Association of Kern County was a proud participant in the Community Development Summits held last year. We worked diligently and cooperatively with a broad cross section of community organizations to reach consensus on a set of principles designed to guide decisions about the furore of our community. Ultimately, the BIA of Kern County added its signature to the Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision/Community Development Summit Report which you have received, acknowledging our endorsement of the general principles set forth in that document. You also received a separate Summary document that included for Requested Action items. We feel obligated to call to your attention that proposed action items 2, 3, and 4 contained in that subsequent Summary document do not appear in the original vision document. Our association has a number of concerns about the requested actions, and after reviewing them we oppose them. BIA's specific concerns are as follows: 1. Proposed action #2 calls for an assessment of economic opportunities and community planning issues in the metropolitan area. As you are aware, a number of ongoing collaborative programs involving the City and the County are underway, including a major study dealing with economic development strategy. Initiating a new separate study for the metropolitan area could duplicate work already in progress. Moreover, the results of the ongoing economic development strategy study, expected in the next several months, could be directly relevant to the goals stated in the Summit document. Therefore, we believe action in this direction is premature. 2. Action item #3 recommends a major study utilizing the services of one or more consultants. The fiscal implications of this recommendation have not yet been subject to any kind of public debate needed to assure cost-effective allocation of scarce resources. Further, the considerable professional and technical expertise already available through existing governmental staffs needs to be brought into the equation prior to embarking on any major new'~. JAN 2 5 I,qOj:j ! Page 1 3. Lastly, action item ~ proposes to establish a "lead group" separate fi.om the City and County to establish a scope of work for the proposed program, and to oversee the actual work. This proposed delegation of local government's legal authority in the area of community planning, however well-intentioned, is highly inappropriate, and could unduly limit participation in the process for a variety of stakeholders in the community who have something to contribute and who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of this effort. There are well-established procedures governing pubhc participation in community planning which should be acknowledged and respected. We strongly believe that the principles set forth in the Summit Report should be considered for future action in the context of your normal decision-making processes, allowing for full involvement by all affected ~md inierested segments of the community. It was never the intent of the Building Industry Association, by its participation in the summit meetings, to circumvent the planning process, which is rightfully under the authority of local government. We remain committed to being active and responsible participants in these important deliberations affecting the future of our community, and we hope you will view the BIA and its members as a resource. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, 0 COUNTY avid Dmohowski President ? Pegc 2 Greater Bakersfield 2020 Vision Summary P~pared for - _, December..__, 1998 Who we are: · T. hc Ch'cate:: Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce convened a ~n of~ummits ofthose broad, based commu~t~, organizations who had ~nvested time and resource.~ in comm~ty planning or in Rte development of principles for community growth. · Two summits were held, in June and September, where representatives of:hese groups participaxed in thc dcvelopment, through cooperctt~on and con~enrus, of commonly agreed upon principles for the future development of our commurtit~. Outside profe~onals facilitated the process. · The organizations, whoae signatures appear on the endorsement page actively participated in the proce~ and have taken formal action to support :he adopted pnnciples. The~e orgam~'~ons are broadly baaed and reflect the diversi~ of our community., representing many thousands of people. Summit ReSults - 2020,.yls,ion. These community development prin~'iples repreaent an initinliT-ntion oft. he development of a long-term strategic, integrated plan for the deve/epment of greater Bake'sfield. The three key priaciples ate: · The need for a bu.~neat enwronment that t~-tai~ and attrat~ bu~ineaa and industry and improve~ their long term viability. · The need to pr~ont~e infrastntctta.e investment to support growth and u a catalyst t'or private invea'tment. ·The nced for an mtegrazedagproacA to a compreheaaive mettopoUtan plan that inc, orporate~ consistent. Requested Action: 1. Adopt the Principle~: Read the document. We trust that you will support it when you do. Then we request that you adopt the principles, and incorporate them in all plann~g decisions of your body. 2. City and County Otlieiab Work Together:. The theme throughout the azmmita was the nen:d for r~ty and county to work closely together to develop a metropolitan plan. 3. l~ire a Planner: We want you to work eollaboratively with ua and other governmental groups in h~ing, directing and mo~toriag an e~erL outside planner to develop the following: · a community needs · a list of valuable c~nnmuni~ assets · input from the groups who participated in the summits for additional ideas and · input from other individuals and groups in the community who are also stakeholders in the futm'e of the community. · a vision and plan the commtm~ty can buy-in to and support 4. £stablish a Lead Group: Tlzis has been a~ c':ter~vc pla'ming pr~ess to da~ ~t t~s ~ just ~e ~ st~. We ~ge you to ~t quic~y ~ ~t~U~ a ~p to ~ppon, ~mr, ~ move the pl~ ~ ~ fo~d. T~s ~oup ~ould be s~ ~th ~~ r~r~n~ion ~om ~e ~ ~r u wall u ~e ~ ~d ~un~. We ~ ~ a~le m ~pp~ ~ ~ ~ng ~s pl~ed ~r~on. ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ud~ ~ ~e is a~en~ ~ed/or ~e ~ the pt~. We ~ to I~k fo~d ~ u ~ ~li~ a ~~~ ~on. ~e ' ' deveio~ of~a~ ~on ~d pl~ ~ m be bm~-b~ ~H~oraive, ~d ~o~ ~ a ~o~ ~y. We l~k ~o~d to ~n8 ~ you ~ ~ ~e m~r of~e pmk. SCHEDULED URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS _, JANUARY 1999 THROUGH DECEMBER 1999 cou.c,. DRAFT ~ REGULAR MEETING (7:00 PM) O BUDGET HEARINGS & DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS WORKSHOP-CLOSED SESSION (5:15 PM) HEARINGS, 6/16/99, 6/30/99 @ 7:00 pm MONDAY'S BEGIN AT NOON HOLIDAYS - City Hall Closed WEDNESDAYS AT 5:15 PM r=-i Urban Development Committee Meetings - 1:15 p.m. (Tentative Dates) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 2 123456 [--'"~1 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9[~"~ 11[--~1 13 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12~'~ 14 15 16 14:iii:i!~:: 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16~ 18 19 20" 17.:i::i~::!ii 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23r~ 25 26 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4[~] 6 7 8 9 10 2r~1 4 5 6 7 8 6~1 8 9 10 11 12 3o JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S I 2 3 1[~] 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 12 13 14 5~!ii:8,1 7 9 10 11 11r"~1 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12r~ 14 15 16 17 I OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 1 2[--'~ 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 10 ~'"~ 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 i'~~' r-~ 19 20 12 13 14~ 16 17 18 17 18 19r-~"'] 21 22 23 21 22 23 24~:~'iiii'~:i ~ 27 19 20 21 22 23 24:~:!i 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30::73i! 31 Urban Development Committee RIGHT TURN LANES Public Works Presentation Beginning slide 1 CALTRANS CRITERIA FOR RIGHT TURN LANES Right turn traffic volume causes backup and delay on through lanes Rear-end and sideswipe accidents caused by right turning vehicles Caltrans criteria for right turn lane 2 4 The lack of a right mm lane on Coffee Road at the Town and Country Shopping Center is a cause of the rear end and side swipe accidents in this area. In the past three years there were eleven (11) rear end or side swipe accidents at this one location. Four happened in the last 12 months. All were caused by cars slowing or stopping to make their mm. PUBLIC WORKS WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN LANES 1. Speed is less than 45 mph and peak hour turning volume is over 200 2. Speed is greater than 45 mph, road will have 4 lanes and the peak hour turning volume is over 50. 3. Speed is greater than 45 mph, road will have 6 lanes and the peak hour turning volume is over 25. Public Works warrant for right mm lane 6 ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ~40RKS ROAD DIVISION 123 EAST ANAPAMU STREET SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA APRIL ~987 PREPARED BY NAZIR LALANI, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER ~NCLUDING A COMPILATION OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY BRUCE W. BURNWORTH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR., CITY OF SANTA BARBARA 4-3 Criteria for Requiring Speed Change Lanes Speed change lanes will be required according to the following unless a variance is obtained from the Public Works Department waiving these provisions. For design standards see Section 7 of this manual. 4-3.01 Deceleration Lanes for Right Turnin~ Vehicles a. A speed change lane for right turning deceler- ation movements is required for any access ac- cording to Figure 1 in Appendix 6 when the de- sign hour volumes of the highway (single lane) and the design hour volume of right turns in- tersect at a point on or above the curve for the posted speed. b. Where the design hour volume of the right turn into the access is less than five and the out- side lane volume exceeds 250 on 45 to 55 mph highways, 450 on 35 to 40 mph highways, or 600 on a 25 to 30 mph highway, a right turn lane may be required due to high traffic volumes or other unique site specific safety considera- tions. c. When the access volume meets or exceeds 25 de- sign hour volume for highways with speeds of 25 to 40 mph or 20 design hour volume for highways with speeds in excess of 40 mph, a right turn deceleration lane will be required. 4-3.02 Acceleration Lanes for Right Turning Vehicles a. A speed change lane for right turning acceler- ation movement is required for any access ac- cording to Figure 2 in Appendix 6, when the design hour volume of right turns intersect at a point on or above the curve for the posted speed. bUU ,-;, ]T: r; ]T ~. !"IT ~' '~,l'nT ' .... 1 ' ': :]TTT' 'T'[? '-T~ '~U F~Tt 1 ,, I' t I' "~ .,,~." 1' ' [ i ~ """ '~ ~'~" "", ~[k". I/~ ~ ~!~'~ J ,':', ~' ": ~!1~,' : t  . I I1,.,I llll, I!',IH. ,.1,,..., ~:I o 't la..t '. l,l]l~l i,T.T;t ! ~,~! ~,:11t ~ l't't'~ ~ % +-- ~ ~I" ~"~'~*~' 0 ' 5 I0 15 20 25 DHV OR AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF VEHICLES TURNING RIGHT INTO ACCESS SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROAD DIVISION VOLUME WARRANTS FOR RIGHT-TURN F~ u R E DECELERATION LANES I The warrants for the City of Bakersfield were developed using information and warrants from Mr. Nazir Lalani, and the County of Santa Barbara. Mr. Lalani is the International Vice President of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He is currently the City Transportation Engineer for Ventura, CA. He is an internationally recognized expert in Traffic Engineering and traffic operations and safety. 8 Last year, 33 percent (1331) of all accidents in Bakersfield were rear-end collisions. Ten percent (over 400) of all accidents in Bakersfield were sideswipe type collisions. The drivers hit cars that were slowing down or stopping for roms, other cars turning, congested traffic at intersections or stops. Right turn lanes reduce accidents by getting the turning traffic out of the through lanes. This is a Health and Safety benefit to the driving public. ' Right mm lanes also reduce the congestion at intersections.. Accident stats related to right mm need 9 Urban Development Committee RIGHT TURN LANES Public Works Presentation Beginning slide 10 Route 58 Centennial Transportation Corridor Project Description: The Centennial Transportation Corridor project would replaCe Rosedale Highway and 23/24 th Streets as the state highway routes 58 and 178. The proposal is to construct a six/four lane freeway from, Routes 58 and 178 through Bakersfield connecting to Interstate 5. Proiect Background: · The concept of a freeway through the metropolitan Bakersfield area was developed by Caltrans in the late 1950s. Construction was completed to Route 99. · A proposed freeway north of the Kern River was shown in the Rosedale Community General Plan adopted by Kern County in February 1980. · In October 1986, Kern CountY adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and General Plan Circulation Element Amendment for the Westside Thoroughfare. · In December 1986, the Route 178 (Crosstown Freeway) Study was completed by Kern COG. · Kern COG completed the Westside Corridor Study in June 1988. · The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopted in 1989 by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County identified the Route 58/178 Freeway Corridors. · The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern adopted a plan line for Route 58 in 1991. During the re-authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act in 1991, Congressman Thomas was able to include the Route 58 project as a demonstration project ($4.7 million). · The 1994 and 1996 Regional Transportation Plan have the Route 58 project listed as the number one priority project (pages 5-8 ). · In 1992, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) programmed $45 million to allow Caltrans to begin the Route Adoption Study and EIR. · Caltrans began working on the Route Adoption Study and EIR in 1992. · On May 1, 1996, the CTC adopted the STIP that aside $500,000.00 and directing Caltrans to proceed "diligently" with the route adoption study in time for consideration of programming for right-of-way and/or construction funding by the Commission in the 1998 STIP cycle. · Caltrans completed the Project Study Report for Phase 1 of Route 58 in October 1997. · During the re-authorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Act in 1997, Congressman Thomas was able to include the Centennial Transportation Corridor project as a demonstration project ($15.7 million). · At the February 1997, the Kern COG Board of Director's approved a long-term funding program for the Route 58 project. · The Final EIR/EIS TIER 1 document was submitted to the Federal reviewing agencies in October 1998. Current Issues and Focus: The Route 58 project can not move forward until the Route Adoption Study and EIR are completed and the route alignment is adopted by the CTC. Kern COG's current focus is to work with Caltrans District 6 to complete the EIR so that the Route Adoption Study and EIR can be submitted to the CTC and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for review and approval. A major issue with the completion of the Route Adoption Study and EIR is the lengthy review process by FHWA. FHWA has two review periods that may total eleven (11) months. Congressman Thomas has been contacted to assist in shortening these review times. The local technical staff and Caltrans continue to meet to develop a fundable project for submittal to the CTC. Caltrans, Bakersfield City, Kern County and Kern COG are working on a phase 1 project which is currently priced at $175 million (construction and right of way) that was included in the 1998 STIP. At its February 4, 1998 meeting the Kern COG TAC committee voted to ask for Policy Board approval of this project in the 1998 STIP. The Kern COG has approved the project for the RTIP and Caltrans has approved the project in their ITIP (Interregional Transportation Improvement Program). The Tier II study has been held up pending the final approval of Tier I. A Phase I Project Study Report has been completed, signed by Caltrans District and forwarded to Headquarters. FHWA notified Caltrans that they had approved the circulation of FEIS/EIR and would be publishing the notification in the National Register by mid-November. A Public Workshop was held December 11, 1997. Final date for comments is January 25, 1998. Upcomin,cl Events: An RFP will be issued to proceed with the Tier II environmental document. A consultant should be approved at the July 1999 Kern COG Board meeting. Kern Regional Transportation Financing Program October t998 ( In Millions of Dollars ) , Funding Summary including Interregional Improvement Program TIP CYCLE -) 19981 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Total 2000 Route58 $115 (I) $26** (4) $54 (6&8) $26 (9) $26 (10) $78 (11) $78 (12) $78 (13) $481 liP $30 (!) $14 (4) $30 (6&8) $14 (9) $14 (10) $42 (11) $42 (12) $42 (13) $228 CentannlalCorridor $5 (2&3) $8.75'**(5&6) $2 (7) $16 Other Projects $0' $34 $36 $64 $64 $12 $12 $12 $234 Total Program $ ! 80 $92.75'* $122 $104 $104 $132 $132 $32 $959 Expenditures RIP Advance $30 (1) $(30) Assumptions: · Regional Improvement Program funding is estimated at $90 million per two year cycle. ® Centennial Corridor Funding Split 35% liP / 65% RIP Notes:. 1. Route 58 (Kern River Freeway) - Build Freeway / Expressway from Mohawk to Stockdale Highway. 2. Complete PSR and Tier i EIS/EIR for Centennial Corridor (east). 3. Complete PSR and Tier ! EIS/EIR for Route 58 (east). 4. Complete construction of interchanges at Calloway Rd., Rcnfro Rd. and Allen Rd. and widen to four lanes. 5. Complete Tier il EIS/EIR for Route 58 (east). 6. Purchase right-of-way fi.om Mohawk to "P" Street. 7. Complete Tier II EIS/EIR for Route 178 (east). 8. Complete construction of Cenntennial Corridor fi.om Mohawk Rd. to "P" St: 9. Purchase right-of-way fi.om "P" St. to Route 178 and Route 58. 10. Construct Centennial Corridor fi.om "P" St. to Route 58/I 78. 11. Construct the Route 58/178 interchange. 12. Complete construction fi.om Route 58/178 to Route 58 (east). 13. Complete construction from Route 58/178 to Route 178 (east). * Estimate $15 million to do other environmental studies. ** Includes payback advance of $30 million. *** Includes $3 million for Tier il work for Route 58 (east), (//5), and for righl-of-way purchase. I I:\WPWIN~REPORI~PPC~I lOUT_3 WI'D Questions and Answers of Route 58 Why are we constructing the Route 58/178 freeway? The new freeway is being constructed to relieve congestion in the south and west portions of Bakersfield, and to provide a direct route through Bakersfield. Will this take care of all the congestion for the near future? No, this freeway along with the new city and county roads will relieve the congestion somewhat but as the area continues to grow, further improvements in both local roads and transit will be needed. What alternatives to Route 58 were studied? When this study began there were 20 alternatives. They included 7th Standard Road, Hageman Road, Rosedale Highway, Brimhall Road, Kern River and a southern alignment near Panama Lane. As the study progressed, and issues identified, alternatives were eliminated. The reasons for elimination were that the alignment did not meet the original purpose identified for the facility. Where non-highway alternatives studied? Both a light rail alternative and an increased transit alternative were studied. Currently the population of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is not dense enough to make light rail feasible. Given the current desire for Iow density residential development the densities required to support a light rail system may never be realized. Increasing Golden Empire Transit service in lieu of a freeway was also considered, however the capital outlay and operating cost were prohibitive. Why are we building o this alignment instead of 7th Standard Road of the Southern alignment. This facility must fulfill the needs of two types of travelers; the local commuter and the interregional traveler. The 7th Standard Road alignment would satisfy the needs of these interregional travelers but would do little for or nothing for the Bakersfield commuter. The estimate is that the 7th Standard Road alignment would carry only about 33% of the traffic that would be on the Route 58 alignment. The Southern alignment would not serve either the interregional traveler nor the Bakersfield commuter. The Southern alignment would only carry about 15 -20% of that on Route 58. Why don't we build the freeway on the-7th Standard Road alignment to serve the interregional traveler and also build an expressway along the Kern River serving only local commuters? Funding. While the 7~ Standard alignment would be considered cheaper we would be unable to get state and federal support for separate facilities. As there is virtually no local funds available for new facilities the expressway which would be the most necessary part of the two facilities would remain unfunded. We must build facilities that serve state and national interests as well as local interest if we are to receive federal funds. Many of those opposed to the Route 58 project contend that this facility is being constructed for the trucks interests. The Route 58 alignment in the year 2020 is estimated to carry between 50,000 to 85,000 vehicles daily between Allen Road and Route 99. It will carry about 22,000 vehicles daily between Allen Road an I-5. Of these trips, about 80% have an origin and/or destination within Kern County. The remaining 20% is interregional trips that lie outside our study area (Kern County). About 25-30% of the total trips are trucks some of which stop or start within the study area. Many of these trucks are moving through the area today. They are primarily using Stockdale Highway and Rosedale Highway. What benefits are there to this new facility? No matter where you live in Bakersfield or where you work,, the projected levels of congestion will affects you. The construction of this facility will relieve congestion on many of the major streets to the north and south of this alignment. TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT .FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY (TEA-21) Completion Haghway I Transportat*on I J Mitigation and/ and System ! Program ~ ~ Maintenance (NHS) I_ (STP) O_ ,,, ~~ __,,~.,/Transportat, on] [ Improvement ! Operations andI I Transportatton I Mitigation anti ~ L_. ] Program ! Protection Plan~ / Program , Air Quality ~ (SHOPP) PUBLIC WORKS FINANCING OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Gas 'Fax Federal = $. 184 State = $.18 Federal Gas Tax (TEA-21) STIP 75% to Regions 25% to State (Interregions) SHOPP (State Control) STP CMAQ TEA HES ER (EMERGENCY RELIEF) SEISMIC BRIDGE RETROFIT PROGRAM State Gas Tax GAS TAX SUBVENTIONS GRADE SEPARATION EEM PVEA BICYCLE LANE ACCOUNT Transportation Development Act (1/4 of 1% sales tax) Article 3 Article 8 Special Local Taxes for Transportation ½ cent sales tax Development funded project financing Transportation Impact Fees (Regional) Transportation Impact Fees (Local) Development actually constructing improvements Bond Financing GOB (voter approved) COP (need only a source of revenue and entity that has backing to pay for it) Assessment District