The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/22/2000 BAKERSFIELD Randy Rowles, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Wednesday, March 22, 2000 4:00 p.m. City Hall- Council Chamber 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 28, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation regarding the Borba Dairy development and a proposed resolution in opposition - Hardisty B. Discussion and possible Committee recommendation regarding Downtown Business and Property Owners' Vision effort--Traffic and Circulation 5. ADJOURNMENT S:~John\Urban Dev\00mar22agen.wpd JWS:jp F LE DRAFT BAKERSFIELD _('~- I~ ~ Randy Rowles, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, February 28, 2000 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 4:05 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Acting Chair; and David Couch and Councilmember Randy Rowles, Chair arrived at 5:15 p.m. 2. ADOPT JANUARY 31, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Renee Nelson spoke regarding Thomer School pedestrian issues at Thorner Drive and Panorama due to construction. Her concerns were referred to Public Works staff for a response. 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Downtown Business and Property Owners' Vision effort--Downtown Parking Herman Ruddell of the Downtown Business and Property Owners Vision Committee spoke regarding the possibility of establishing a parking authority in the downtown. He discussed possible use of redevelopment funds, developer fees and enforcement revenues as possible revenue sources. Staff indicated that a previously existing business improvement distdct assessment was eliminated at the request of the property owners in the downtown. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, February 28, 2000 Page -2- There was discussion of the pros and cons of having additional assessments and who would pay them. Staff presented information on the costs of constructing additional parking structures. Concern was expressed about adding an additional layer of government in the downtown with the creation of a parking authority. The committee asked that Mr. Ruddell meet and work with staff and then come back to the committee for further discussion of this issue. B. Review and Committee recommendation regarding Shellabarger Road access The Committee discussed opening the west end of Shellabarger Road where it intersects with Pepita Way. Shellabarger Road is essentially a 3/4 mile long cul-de-sac in an unincorporated area adjacent to the City, which has given both jurisdictions cause for concern with respect to the safety of the residents under emergency situations. A survey of City residents in the area voted 18 to 1 to not support the opening of the road, due to concerns about increased traffic within the adjacent subdivision. The City has received letters from both the City Police Chief and the County Sheriff as well as the Fire Chiefs of both jurisdictions requesting that the end of Shellabarger Road be opened to through traffic for safety reasons. A petition from 89 residents of Shellabarger Road was received by the City that also requested the opening of the road. A survey of residents on Shellabarger Road voted 30 to 15 to open the road. Staff indicated that the simple removal of the gate at the end of Shellabarger Road will not result in a street width that will be adequate for two directions of traffic. Opening the road will require the purchase' of additional right-of-way to finish the construction of the knuckle at the end of Pepita Way, in order to complete a paving tie-in with the existing roadway on Shellabarger Road. While the completion of Pepita Way will help the residents of Shellabarger Road, it was discussed that another road connecting Shellabarger Road to either Palm Avenue or Brimhall Road would improve public safety response and address the traffic circulation concerns of both county and city residents. It was suggested that the County should pursue roadway construction connecting Shellabarger Road to either Palm Avenue or Brimhall Road, or both, to address these concerns. The Committee recommended the following: 1) That the City Council consider opening Shellabarger Road at Pepita Way due to public safety concerns expressed by Public Safety agencies and the majority of residents on Shellabarger Road; and 2) That staffproceed with any environmental reviews required by such consideration; and 3) That consideration of the opening of Shellabarger Road be referred to the Planning Commission for determination of consistency with the 2010 General Plan, including a public hearing; and DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, February 28, 2000 Page -3- 4) To direct staff to obtain an appraisal of the property required to complete the opening of the road and initiate informal negotiations for the purposes of voluntary acquisition of the property with the property owner; and 5) That a letter be conveyed by the Mayor to the Kern County Board of Supervisors requesting that the County pursue roadway construction connecting Shellabarger Road to either Palm Avenue or Bdmhall Road, or both, to improve public safety response and address the traffic circulation concerns of both county and city residents in the area. C. Review and Committee recommendation regarding right-turn channelization at signalized intersections Traffic Engineering staff made a brief presentation on "free right turn" traffic channelization at intersections. Councilmember Couch expressed interest in this design in order to enhance traffic flow. Staff expressed concerns regarding potential increased liability with this design. Staff will review current traffic engineering standards and return with some possible options for consideration. D. Staff update and.possible recommendation regarding Charrette Process Development Services Director Jack Hardisty provided information on the cost and possible funding of a Charrette process for the downtown. He explained that the Gharrette process is' a broad based, focused effort to work on community design ideas. He estimated that $60,000 would be needed to fund the program. He indicated that he had applied for a grant from the Great Valley Center for $40,000, however it was uncertain if all or a portion of the request would be funded. It was suggested that $20,000 of the funding come from private contributions, $20,000 come from grants and the remaining $20,000 come from Council Contingency. It was recommended that this issue be put on the March 15 Council agenda for approval to proceed and funding from Council Contingency. 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS The Committee determined that the Urban Development Committee meeting scheduled for March 20 needed to be rescheduled due to a conflict with the joint City Council/County Board of Supervisors meeting on that day. The Urban Development Committee meeting was rescheduled to March 22 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. D AFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, February 28, 2000 Page -4- 8. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 6:25 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attendance: Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager John Stinson, City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Economic Development Director Jake Wager, Public Works Civil Engineer Madan Shaw, and Traffic Engineer Stephen Walker. Public: Herman Ruddell, DBA; Cathy A. Butler, DBA; Renee Nelson; John Kind, Carriage Homes; Mark Smith, Grubb &.Ellis/ASU & Associates; and Laura Fanucchi,. 10915 Shellabarger Road. S:John\UrbanDev\U D00feb 28Summary.wpd A Word About What Do Parking Structures Cost? N'lonster SUV's This is one of the first ques- express ramps will result in a high- Geographical Iocatioo - costs tions clients ask. Before we can er area per space than one with vary considerably by geographic respond, we need to know the sloping parking ramps. A two-bay region. answers to the following: How structure with a double-helix con- Number of levels - taller struc- many spaces do you need? How ~ Lures have a higher average cost many levels? What size is the site? per square foot because elevated The answers have a major impact levels are more costly than the by Charles M. Boldon on the cost per space figure for a ground level. particular parking structure. Shape of site - the length of Over the past few months, Cost per space is dependent on exterior facade per square foot of we have been contacted by The two factors: (1) area per spacb and area is greater on small sites than New York 77roes, The Los (2) cost per square foot. Two-Bay Oouble Helix on large sites and greater on long, Angeles 77rnes, The Daily News AREA PER SPACE is affected narrow sites than on square sites, and KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, all by several factors: figuration will have a lower area resulting in higher costs. wanting to know what we are Type of user - retail customer per space than a two-bay structure Topography - sloping sites usu- doing about the proliferation of parking requires more generous with an end-to-end loop conflgura- ally result in expensive retaining monster SUV's. parking dimensions than office tion... .... ~ .walls. ..' ..-::: ...... Since they were all interest- employee parking, hence a higher '"" '" .. - " .. Poor soil con'ditions re. Suit in ed in grabbing the interest of the area per space. ~ higher foundation costs. ·: public with alarming news, they Width of site - a narrow site High-level exterior architectur- didn't really want to hear that may dictate a shallow angle of al treatment - increases costs sig- most SUV's are mid-size vehi- parking which results in a higher nificantly. cles, and the biggest ones, like area per space than steeper The following table indicates the Suburban, represent only angles or ninety-degree parking, typical costs for above-grade park- about one percent of total vehi- City parking requirements - ing structures in Southern cie sales, some cities require wider spaces Two-Bay End-to-End Loop California. However, the average size and aisles than others, no matter Shape of site - irregular shapes Current costs for below-grade car has been steadily growing who the user is, resulting in a high- create wasted areas within the structures will be in the next issue, over the years. The median er area per space, parking structure, or visit our website at: vehicle size ten years ago was Type of flow system- a level- COST PER SQUARE FOOT is www.ipd-global.com about 15' long and about 5'-8" floor structure with connecting affected by these factors: wide. Now the median is about 15'-10" long and 5'-11" wide. Ten years ago, the vehicle Typical Construction Costs per Space for Above-Grade Parking size representing the 85th per- centile, used as the "design vehi- cie," was about 16'-0' long and 6- Small Site Medium Site Large Site 0" wide. Now this vehicle is 17'- 30,000 s.f. 60,000 s.f. 90,000 s. f. 8"long and 6'-8"wide. Thisvehi- Customer Employee Customer EmploYee Customer Employee cie still fits comfortably into a typical full-size space of 18'-0' Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking long and 8'-6" wide, but the trend 350 320 325 300 315 290 clearly indicates that there are fewer cars that will fit in the s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car s.f./car smallest compact spaces of 15'- Surface Parking $1,838 $1,680 $1,706 $1,575 $1,654 $1,523 0" long and 7'-6" wide. This is why many cities are Ground + 1 Level $7,258 $6,636 $6,143 $5,670 $5,705 $5,253 adopting a "one size fits all' parking standard, based on 8'-6', Ground + 2 Levels $8,085 $7,392 $6,768 $6,248 $6,284 $5,786 or even 8'-4" wide with overall parking-bay widths somewhat Ground + 3 Levels $8,407 $7,686 $6,996 $6,458 $6,491 $5,976 reduced from full-size spaces. This is a reasonable approach, Ground + 4 Levels $8,747 $7,997 $7,269 $6,710 $6,747 $6,212 since newer cars have tighter Ground + 5 Levels $8,973 $8,204 $7,451 $6,878 $6,918 $6,369 turning radii and are more maneuverable than older cars. Ground + 6 Levels $9,135 $8,352 $7,581 $6,998 $7,040 $6,482 The cities of Santa Aha, Anaheim, Glendale and San Ground + 7 Levels $9,256 $8,463 $7,678 $7,088 $7,132 $6,566 Diego have adopted the "one size fits all" standard. We hope Ground + 8 Levels $9,351 $8,549 $7,754 $7,158 $7,203 $6,631 all cities will follow suit. Assumes rectangular site, 120' minimum site width, good soil conditions, quafity finishes. Free Right Turns At Arterial Intersections · Free Right Turns are unrestricted or uncontrolled right turns at intersections and . separated from other traffic movements. · They are primarily used at uncontrolled intersections or at stop sign controlled intersections. An example still in use in Bakersfield is at Mount Vernon and Panorama, a multiway stop control. Others that used to exist in town have been eliminated when traffic signals were installed to provide pedestrian protection. · No pedestrian protection is present with a Free Right Turn configuration. Pedestrians must cross only when an adequate gap in traffic is available or all pedestrian crossings should be prohibited for safety if this is not possible. · The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices recommends that pedestrian signals be provided at signalized intersections. This is not possible while still maintaining a Free Right Turn configuration. · To meet handicap ramp standards of the State for ADA compliance, an island with pedestrian refuge area and ramps would be built if pedestrians were allowed to cross the Free Right Turn area. Additional right of way along the adjacent property would be required to fit in -the island refuge. · To meet truck turning radius designs, a Free Right Turn corner must be enlarged from a standard radius. This allows the trucks to not conflict with through traffic. · With a larger radius, a merging lane is needed to allow the Free Right Turn traffic to merge with the through traffic lanes since there will be no control for the right turn traffic. Additional right of way along the merging lane would be required from the adjacent property. · A merging area must be kept clear of driveways to prevent traffic conflicts with the right turn traffic and traffic wanting to enter a driveway. This can be done by restricting access points for a distance away from the intersection. The distance would depend on the design speed of the street. Arterial streets are 55 mph or greater per the Vehicle Code. · Other methods of enhancing the efficiency of a right turn are possible that would not adversely affect pedestrian crossing or require additional right of way acquisition. The U-turns could be prohibited and the right turn signalized to allow turns when the non- conflicting left turn is in use. Examples of this operation are at Mohawk and Truxtun and at Mohawk and California intersections. · Two right turn lanes instead of one could be used with a signal indication. This will still allow pedestrian crossings to be safely protected while increasing the efficiency. The downside is that some additional right of way at the corner would be needed, but no merging lane or access restrictions. SUMMARY: Free right turns are not recommended where pedestrian traffic is expected or cannot be accommodated by other means. Other methods of signal operation and use of additional lanes are available that still protect the pedestrian and require much less property right of way to implement. slw: January 31, 2000 I I I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA PUBLICTRAFFicWORKSENGiNEER/NcDEPAR TMEN T ~o:,,~ao, o.o.,,: ~ EXPANDED AR TERIAL- AR TERI~ ,~ ZT. ~o EIGHT PHAS:~S ~ IOFt RAN D U M March 8, 2000 TO: JOHN W. STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: MARC GAUTHIER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: BORBA DAIRY BORBA This is written in response to a series of questiOns asked by Council members Maggard and Couch at the Urban Development committee meeting of Monday, January 31,2000 on the Borba Dairy complex. Much of this information comes from the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Were the identified air quality impacts of this project mitigated? No. There are four air quality impacts which are identified as significant and unable to be mitigated, this is in accordance with the environmental impact report. 1. Emissions from Fugitive dust during operation - PM~0. Even with mitigation this impact is identified as a "significant" unavoidable adverse environmental impact. 2. Reactive Organic Gases from Dairy Operations - Mitigation is experimental (digesters) and expensive, environmental document is set up to permit the Board of Supervisors to ignore mitigation, therefore impact is identified as a "significant" unavoidable adverse impact. 3. Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from project Operations - ODOR, no mitigation possible, impact is identified as a "significant" unavoidable adverse impact. 4. Cumulative methane emissions - Methane is an odorless, flammable gas. Even with mitigation .this impact identified as a "significant" unavoidable adverse impact. John W. Stinson March 8, 2000 Page 2 Were the water quality impacts of this project mitigated? Yes. The water quality impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. (Borba Dairy EIR page 4.3-17) Through the managed use of waste water ponds, their design and construction, using and maintaining clayey soils under corrals and dry waste storage areas, using positive draining to the wastewater ponds and abandoning any water supply wells within 100 feet of the dairy. Effectiveness of mitigation would need to proven through monitoring and tests. What is the depth of the water table in the area? Approximately 100 - 140 feet. (Borba Dairy EIR page 4.3-5) What depth will the effluent penetrate? The effluent is to be "retained" in ponds that are lined with clay to seal them as is currently done with land fill sites. The two dairies will produce in excess of a million gallons of wastewater a day. There will be manure separation pits and wastewater ponds where the waste will decompose and solids will settle. All wells within 100 feet of the dairy will be abandoned. These measures are intended to keep the effluent from filtering to the water table. After "treatment" that portion of the total effluent the applicant can spread should penetrate from .6 to 20 feet. (Borba Dairy EIR page 4.3-17) Will the water supply be safe? If the proposed mitigation is diligently adhered to and monitored for effectiveness. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is the agency which set the standards and enforces the requirements for waste water disposal. (Borba Dairy EIR 4.3-18) Is there a danger to the water table? Maybe. No one ever sets out with the goal to damage the water table, there is no logic to do so. If they are wrong here, the results are potentially catastrophic, the Kern Water Bank and the City of Bakersfield 2800 acre water bank are close by and both are irreplaceable. Once nitrates have infiltrated a water basin staff is unaware of even a single instance where the damage was reversed. If this proposed dairy is added to the other dairy projects already existing or approved within 5 miles of the project it could result in a concentration of over 60,000 cows located in the vicinity. 60,000 cows can generate the same amount of waste as 300, 000 people, without collection and secondary sewage treatment. (City of Bakersfield Public Works and Water Department). John W. Stinson March 8, 2000 Page 3 Is there a plot of the area of odor impact? No. The extent of effectiveness of the odors is a function of their intensity and the geographic and personal relation of the receptors. Any "sensitive" receptor within one mile of this site is considered to be significantly impacted from odor produced by the Dairy. There are a series of actions to be done in accordance with a not yet approved "odor management plan" that may reduce odor at the source. Dusty environments and places in hot climates will have worse odor impacts than similar odor producing facilities located in cool climates. It should be noted on windy days with dust in suspension the odor will have greater impacts downwind. (Borba Dairy EIR page 4.2-19) Is this an issue? Dust, odor and flies are the most common issues raised by the general public in regards to this project. (Bakersfield Californian) Are we circumventing the process by having this discussion when in fact the City Council is not the legislative body to decide if this project should move forward? Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 plan covers the 408 square mile area including the City of Bakersfield. The plan area was adopted by both the City and County to ensure that development and necessary infrastructure occurs in an coordinated manner. Kern County gave public notice to the City and other agencies as required by law. The process is intended to solicit our concerns if any are to be officially presented to the Board of Supervisors during their hearing process to determine what action they should take. (Planning Director) Are the rules governing the processing of this project changing? No. The process is basically the same for this project as, The Cardiac Hospital, The Southern Beltway or any of several other large projects processed in the last 4 years. The process has been somewhat affected by litigation initiated by the Center for Race, Poverty and Environment and the concerns raised by the California Attorney General Office over not following the rules. (Planning Director) What are the 2010 General plan implications of this project? Assuming the establishment of such a large dairy would inhibit future adjacent lands from urbanization, then it might be argued that the historical development pattern would result in more intense conflict between urban and rural interests. The majority of John W. Stinson March 8, 2000 Page 4 Bakersfield's growth for the last 30 years has been in areas west of Highway 99. That trend continues today with important developments west of Old River Road and south of Stockdale Highway. Mc Allister Ranch a 2,070 acre urban development directly north of the dairies has been approved by the County. This project would potentially alter development patterns or set the stage for future land use conflicts from adjacent incompatible uses. There are general plan policies encouraging the preservation of neighborhoods, quality of life and promotion of health and safety. (Planning Director) Does the County follow the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan? The County has adopted the same general plan polices as the city but its map of future land uses show much more extensive urbanization of unincorporated areas than the city's. (Planning Director) Could there be a cap on the number of cows? Yes. It must be noted there are other dairies "in the pipeline" so the effectiveness of this strategy is dubious unless evaluated cumulatively and geographically rather than individually and site specific. (Planning Director) Is it possible that the air quality impacts of this project could jeopardize transportation funding? Yes. Development of the dairy means further degradation of the air quality. We are in nonattainment for ozone now, dairies add Reactive Organic Gases to that are significant (EIR). This may cause more draconian measures in land use restrictions or loss of funding (for not meeting air quality goals). Federal transportation dollars are 90% of local funding which is connected to land use, which is connected to air quality modeling, which is connected to transportation funding. To what degree this is potentially the case is not known. (Peter Smith, Kern Council of Government). Are there other areas to site the dairies? Yes. Assuming the needs include property designated for agriculture, surrounded by agriculture, in the San Joaquin Valley, in Kern County, not in Bakersfield Metropolitan area (408 square miles); approximately 1,340 square miles. (Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan) cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager MG:pah S:\borbal .wpd