Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/2002 BAKERSFIELD David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, June 10, 2002 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MAY 6, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ' 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding space needs and City Hall expansion - Tandy 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding removal of trees in City right-of-ways - Stinson 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN~Urban Dev200~02Junel0.doc ' D AFT ,BAKERSFIELD ~ [J C~ David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, May 6, 2002, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT APRIL 8, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding space needs and City Hall expansion Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen provided an update on spaCe needs. At the direction of the Committee, staff has looked at several sites for temporary space for Management Information Services (MIS). MIS needs more space immediately as they do not have enough room in their basement location for employees and equipment. Staff recommends that the hardware (network) not be moved as it would cost approximately $100,000 to move the equipment, and if moving to a temporary location, it would require moving it again.~ Staff also recommends keeping technical network and personal computer staff at City Hall. MIS management and the website personnel could be moved with little disruption to the division. The Washing Mutual building has 3,100 square feet available for lease and it may be possible to negotiate a short-term, three year lease. The Committee was-also interested in exploring the availability of the space in the Borton Petrini building because of its close proximity to City Hall. Staff was requested to loOk into the availability of a Iong~term lease with a renewal and/or purchase option, URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, May 6, 2002 Page -2- ~- ' In response to the Committee's request, Public Works Director Raul' Rojas provided different campus style design concepts for the current City Hall location. Options included the possibility of moving Police Services to another location.and building a four story City ~Hall, or leaving Police Services and building additional stories on the Public Works building. Parking is a big issue and would require erecting a parking structure. Adding floors to the current Public Works building and the logistics of where current staff and parking would be located during construction were discussed. The Committee requested staff to provide the long-term cost differential between owning and .leasing space. Using the Central Park location to build a new City Hall and parking structure was discussed. The Committee stressed any green space used must be replaced in the downtown area. The Bakersfield Museum is at that site and there is a large investment in their facilities, so that would need to stay in its present location. The Committee requested staff to place calls as soon as possible to the Bakersfield Museum of Art and the Veterans Memorial Park Committee, so they are aware of today's discussions and do not hear it first on the news. Staff will convey to the Veterans Memorial Park Committee their project is highly regarded. PUblic Works staff will bring design concepts for the Central Park location to the next meeting. B, Discussion and Committee recommendation .regarding Tree Ordinance enforcement Assistant City Manager John Stinson gave an overview of informational memorandums included in the packet. The first memo dealt with issues regarding tree maintenance and replacement of trees. It included ways the City could provide educational information for individuals and business who hire professionals to maintain their trees; voluntary educational efforts targeted to educate professional tree trimmers; and research on other cities' ordinances for comparison with the City's ordinance requirements for replacement of trees. The City's current ordinance regarding replacement of trees does not have a mechanism to provide sufficient deterrent to prevent removal and replacement of trees reaching a fuller maturity with smaller trees. Staff favored the wording used by the City of San Diego, which requires trees that die within the first three years must be replaced with the same sized tree. Trees that die three years or more after installation must be replaced with 60" boxed trees. It provides the City Manager with authorization to adjust the replacement depending on site restrictions and the size of the specimen that died. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, May 6, 2002 Page -3- The Committee discussed the difference between trees that die of natural causes and someone cutting down trees and the implications if the commercial property has a 40 percent shade canopy without the dead trees. Also, the Tree Ordinance recently adopted by the Council called for 48" boxed-tree replacements with 60" planters. If a 60" inch boxed-tree replacement is required, it will not fit in a 60" planter. Staff will return to the Committee with alternative ordinance language. The second-memorandum provided two proposed options for regulation of tree trimmers: Option 1 - Voluntary Certification, which focuses on .providing for voluntary certification in order to improve the skills and knowledge of local commercial tree trimmers. Option 2 - Licensing of Tree Trimmers, which focuses on requiring a city license and International Society of Arborists (ISA) Certified Arborist certification requirement in order' to operate as a commercial tree trimmer. Other cities surveyed typically only require the license and ISA certification to work on city-owned trees, not those on.commercial or private property. Staff recommended Option 1, which provides tree trimmers could voluntarily obtain the ISA Certified Arborist certification. Classes are.offered through Bakersfield Coltege for tree trimmers and would provide basic tree trimming skills and backgrOund to prepare them' for the certification. Certification requires three years of documented field experience, passing a multiple choice examination, and continuing education of 30 CEUs every three years. There is an initial fee of $225 and a renewal fee of $100-$200 based on level of affiliation. Committee Member Benham made a motion for staff to move forward with staff's -recommendations outlined in Option 1, Voluntary Certification, to improve the skills and knowledge of local commercial tree trimmers. The motion was unanimously approved. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Member Maggard requested staff to check how cities in Southern California that passed ordinances to prohibit the use of leaf blowers dealt with the implications of not being able to use leaf blowers, for example in the parks. Has it been disruptive and negative or are there positives. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:48 p.m. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, May 6, 2002 Page -4- Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Deputy City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Economic Development Director Donna Kunz; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Finance Director Gregory'Klimko; Recreation and Parks Director Stan Ford; Public Works Civil Engineer Ted Wright; Public Works Park and Landscape Designer Don Hoggatt; Real Property Agent Don Anderson; and Urban Forester Paul Graham Others: Mark Smith, Grubb & Ellis/ASU; Tammy BroWn, KUZZ; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; and James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; and.Jon Don, KGET-TV cc: Honorable Mayor and City Counciimembers. S:~JOHN~Urban Dev2002~ud02May06summary.wpd B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM May 28, 2002 TO: Urban Development Committee FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: City Hall The Urban Development Committee has been brainstorming the subject of a new City Hall complex. Most of the variations discussed to date have been in the $90,000,000 to $110,000,000 cost range. At the most recent meeting, the idea of placing City Hall in Central Park arose. Depending on a variety of factors, the costs of that alternate are more in the $50,000,000 to $55,000,000 range. The purpose of this memo is to give the Committee a good idea of what the very real and practical consequences are for such numbers so you can decide, in light of that, whether we should continue to spend a lot of time and effort on these concepts. Since the Central Park idea is much cheaper, this is also intended to be a very frank discussion of the pros and cons of that alternative. CENTRAL PARK The ConcePt Staff has taken the comments made at the committee level and added a few thoughts. The revised "concept" would be: All uses currently in City Hall, the Public Works annex, Development Services, 515 Truxtun, Recreation and Parks and the Water Department would move to a new campus-style complex to be built in Central Park. Green space lost would be replaced along the canal corridors north and south of the Park at 515 Truxtun, and elsewhere. Redevelopment efforts would be made to connect the new complex with positive new private sector development back toward Truxtun and Chester Avenues. A parking garage would be built off the park land both to serve the City complex and to spur some redevelopment. The Police Department would be given the Public Works annex for expansion. City Hall would be leased for, say, 10 years to produce a revenue stream to offset bond costs. At some point, it would be converted to Police use. The Development Services building and Water Resources building would be sold to produce revenue for the new structure. 515 Truxtun would be part of the r&placement for the green space lost in Central Park. Urban Development Committee May 28 2002 Page 2 This is a far more economical alternate than previous concepts discussed because: 1) There is minimal land purchase since the City owns the park. (A parking garage and green space replacement would be the exception.) 2) There are no demolition costs involved. 3) There are no temporary relocation costs, nor two moves involved. 4) Space for future expansion in Central Park could be done by building modules. At other locations, floors have to be added to a high rise at initial construction. At Central Park, those costs are deferred until they are needed. 5) The Public Works annex resolves Police space expansion needs for 10 years or so, rather than being demolished. 6) The current City Hall becomes a revenue stream for 10 years and space for Police use after that, so Police space is resolved for 20-30 years. Ne.qatives Associated with the Concept 1) 19t~, 21st and R Streets are "off the track" of Truxtun Avenue as a governmental center. Some would criticize the location as being dangerous, too far removed, ill advised, in a run down area, etc. 2) Any major government spending program on City office space will be opposed by some taxpayers. 3) Change to an old established park would offend some. 4) The senior center would have to be relocated. 5) Trees would have to be cut down. 6) The homeless would lose their "hangout." Positives Associated with the Concept 1) It is the least expensive comprehensive way to address space needs that has ariSen to date - less than half the other alternatives discussed. 2) It is a very bold stroke that would spur redevelopment south and west from the site. It could also improve an underutilized portion of the downtown, which if enhanced could create a positive image of the park instead of a negative one due to security concerns. 3) It would be a more efficient, centrally located way to operate City government. 4) It would be more convenient for citizens than operations at five to six locations. 5) It would be a 50-year space solution, rather than the short-term things now being done. Urban Development Committee May 28 2002 Page 3 .6) It could be a dynamic and beautiful civic complex - a source of potentially great community pride in harmony with the Downtown Charrette. 7) It would help the Art Museum bring in traffic, attention and focus. 8) It would take advantage of water and trees. 9) By replacing the lost green space, an underutilized park could be replaced by better planned and utilized green space. The additional green space can be integrated to create cohesive and interesting public open space. Concept Bud.qet Phase I $50,000,000 - $55,000,000 Plus estimated cost to relocate Senior Center $ 1,500,000 Less estimated sale of Development Services ($ 2,000,000) Less estimated sale of Water Resources ($ 1,250,000) Net after sales $4-8,250,000 - $53,250,000 Annual Debt Service (25 Years) $ 4,445,000 - $ 4,905,000 Less estimated lease revenues from City Hall ($ 350,000 per year) Less lease payments for ED/CD, Recreation & Parks and MIS Departments ($ 400,000 per year) Adjusted Annual Debt Service $ 3,695,000 - $ 4,155,000 The Cost Based on recent historic averages, the cost of this project would be to go two years without General Fund staff additions. Because a long-term bond would be involved, there would be no catching up in year three, four, or any other time. All departments would tighten their belts and would have to become more efficient. That would impact permanently the ratio of police officers to population, slow expansion of fire services, lengthen the time needed to patch and sweep the streets, and would have comparable results throughout the organization. The other $90,000,000 to $110,000,000 variations would be to go four years without General Fund staff additions, and no catch up provisions. Offsetting these costs would be improved efficiency, enhanced community pride and redevelopment / increased tax base stretching out south and west from the new complex to Truxtun and Chester Avenues. Revenue growth might occur in conjunction with that, but the certainty and time frames are too vague to build into the budget. ALTERNATE Quite frankly, department heads are concerned about their ability to perform effectively if we go through two years of community growth without staff additions. Therefore, an alternate idea was generated, which is to build a new central Police Station in Central Park and use the existing Police building for the expansion of City Hall. Under this concept, the City would keep the Development Urban Development Committee May 28 2002 Page 4 Services and Water buildings. Those now leasing space would move into City-owned space. The Pros and Cons are: Pros ~' It is about a $20,000,000 program, or 36% - 40% of the cost of the above alternate. :> The general public is likely to respond more favorably to a large amount of spending for Police and safety rather than regular City employees. ~. Under this concept, the hold back of staff additions would be more in the range of one year, or a little less - a more tolerable plan to departments. ~' Police at the park would help clean up crime-related problems that exist there now. Cons This version would not be as long term a solution as the original. It might buy 15 years or so. There would still be multiple City buildings, which would not be as efficient or as easy for the public as the original concept. The Police might help spur redevelopment south and west, but not as much as City Hall. This plan has no plaza, trees or water theme, other than for Police. SUMMARY Do the real' costs justify continued consideration of the $100,000,000 plan or the $50,000,000 Central Park plan? What about the $20,000,000 Police to Central Park plan? We are happy to continue the research, or we could move on to lower cost, less long-term alternates, such as purchase of an existing building, which would be more in the $10,000,000 range, but only a 10-15 year solution. DATE: June 7, 2002 TO: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Paul Graham, Urban Forester ~~ FROM: SUBJECT: Pruning and removal of trees in the city right of way Councilmember Benham requested on overview of processes used by staff for pruning and removal of trees in the public right of way. Trees located in the public right of way may be maintained by the City of Bakersfield in order to protect public safety, access, traffic sightlines, and other public purposes. Removal Requests Removal generally occurs at the request of the property owner; unless significant problems related to public safety and liability are observed by city staff, who then may request removal. Removals occur due to public liability and safety issues, infrastructure improvement, and dead or hazardous trees. The decision to remove is based upon the technical findings of the urban forester. This consideration takes into account pruning options, root grinding, potential risk to nearby property and the public. Removal of healthy trees in city right of way The current practice for the removal of a healthy street tree requires that the urban forester complete a written assessment identifying a public liability or safety issue which must be approved by the Director of Recreation and Parks, prior to the removal of the tree. Removal of dying or diseased trees Based on citizen or internal requests trees that have been damaged, diseased or are in a general state of decline are removed after standard evaluation by the urban forester. Notification The current practice is to notify the property owner of tree removal on their property, to give a copy of the hazard evaluation, and notify property owner of the expected removal date, typically providing five working days notice. In rare exceptions, such as an emergency situation, the property owner may not be given advanced notice due to a hazardous situation. If the removal is an interdepartmental request, the property owner is given notice as above, staff contact information, and two weeks to respond to notification. The removal is then scheduled and completed. Pruning As noted above, trees or shrubs may need to be pruned in the right of way in order to protect public safety, access, traffic sightlines, and other public purposes. International Society of Arboriculture guidelines are the standard methods of pruning. Staff typically does not provide notice in advance for purposes of safety related pruning due to the need to respond quickly to such conditions. We are looking to implement a process to notify residents of emergency city pruning activity, in the future. Tree replacement Currently trees on city owned properties such as streetscape and medians are replaced at city expense. Trees in residential parkways are not required to be replaced by the property owner, however staff works with property owners to replace trees through grants and other sources of funding, when available. The replacement of removed trees in commercial developments is based on landscape requirements of the municipal code.