Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2002 AGENDA PACKET JOINT SPECIAL MEETING JOINT MEETING OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2002 City Host City Hall Council Chambers 1501 Truxtun Avenue - 5:30 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Estimated Time 7. (30 Min) (20 Min) (15 Min) (10 Min) (10 Min) (10 Min) (5 Min) INVOCATION by Rev. Sara Haldeman-Scarr, Church of the Brethren FLAG SALUTE by Mahogany Blank, 4~h Grade Student, Van Horn Elementary School ROLL CALL OPENING REMARKS BY MAYOR HARVEY L. HALL OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN STEVE PEREZ PUBLIC STATEMENTS BUSINESS ITEMS B. C. D. High Speed Rail Station Terminal Location - Joint Agenda Item (Discussion Use of STIP Funds for Roadway Rehabilitation - City Agenda Item (Discussion) General Plan Adoption Process/Update - Joint Agenda Item (Discussion) Kern County Museum - "History for the Future Campaign" -County Agenda Item (Discussion) Airport Terminal - Status Report - County Agenda Item (Discussion Coordinating Roadway Improvements - City Agenda Item (Discussion) Schedule for 2002 Joint Meetings - Joint Agenda Item (Discussion/Action) 8. CLOSING COMMENTS BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS 9. CLOSING COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN STEVE PEREZ 10. CLOSING COMMENTS BY MAYOR HARVEY L. HALL 11. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, Alan Tandy City Manager S :\Cou nciI\AGENDA',2002\JOINTCOB-KC31802.wpd September 1,2000 (10:09AM) -2- ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: Business H;em ITEM: 7.A. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council and County Board of Supervisors APPROVED Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD March 13, 2002 Cl'l'~ ATTORNEY ~')~'~' CITY MANAGER High Speed Rail Station Location in Bakersfield, California Metropolitan Area RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Joint Bodies determine that the vicinity of Truxtun Avenue at Union Avenue is the most favorable location for the high speed rail terminal in the Bakersfield area. BACKGROUND: Many studies have been performed to determine the best location for a terminal on the future high speed ground transportation system in California. This administrative report summarizes two of those most detailed reports. In 1993, Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) conducted a study of potential locations for a High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT) Station in the Bakersfield area. That study, conducted by ICF Kaiser Engineers in conjunction with KernCOG's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), considered six locations - the Amtrak Station (west of the original Amtrak Station which was on F Street at the BNSF Railroad); Downtown (east of the Beale Library); East Bakersfield (along Edison Highway west of Mt. Vernon); Fruitvale (along Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and the BNSF Railroad); Olive Drive (along Olive Drive west of SR99); and Westside Freeway (along the McKittrick Branch Railroad two miles west of Buena Vista Road). A copy of the final report from that study is attached. Evaluation criteria for each of these sites included vehicle characteristics of the high speed train (steel wheel versus magnetic levitation); station design characteristics (station functions, platform and trackway requirements, station amenities, handicapped accessibility, vertical circulation, fare collection and site design); right-of-way needs; operational constraints; alignment design; technology and service requirements; required on-site facilities and circulation; · site support of patronage and revenue; site geology and engineering; feasibility of site acquisition; ridership and revenue forecasts; amount of available undeveloped land and government-held land; physical constraints to station area development zones land use; leapfrog and in-fill potential; inter-connectivity; consistency with plans and policies; job generation potential; and tax generation potential. ADR - Design Section Public Works High Speed Rail Station in Bakersfield March 13, 2002, 2:20pm S:\PROJECTStARNOLD\HIGH SPEED RAIL~Admin Repor~ 03_08_02.wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page2 After analyzing the six different potential station locations, the TAC and ICF Kaiser Engineering concluded "that the Downtown site would be the most preferable location for the Bakersfield HSGT terminal. This site is located near a future path for a light rail system; is close to the government and downtown commercial core which allows for revitalization potential; has expansion potential to the east with about two to three miles of available land to avoid conflicts with the (Beale) library; and has access to two arterial roadways." After completion of this report in early 1994, several land developments have occurred which all have a positive impact on this Downtown site for the HSGT terminal, in 1999, the Bakersfield Garden Arena was opened next door to the Convention Center. The combined Arena / Convention Center complex provides a major entertainment / meeting complex within easy walking distance of the site for the HSGT terminal. The new Bakersfield Amtrak Station, opened in 2000, was constructed on the western portion of the Downtown HSGT terminal. This project extended the San Joaquin Amtrak Train service to this site, providing easy transfer between these two modes of transportation. It is important to note that the San Joaquin Amtrak Train service will provide a vital passenger rail service link to the portions of the San Joaquin Valley not served by the HSGT. Also in 2000, the Q Street Underpass was opened. Located immediately adjacent to the west side of the Amtrak Station, this major road improved greatly improved vehicular circulation in the immediate area and provides un-impeded access to a third arterial roadway - namely California Avenue. The last major land development has not yet been constructed. The Centennial Corridor, to be located immediately adjacent to the south side of the Downtown HSGT terminal, will provide greatly improved vehicular access to this terminal location. This Downtown HSGT terminal will foster the continued redevelopment in the downtown area that has been on-going since the late 1990's. At their January 2002 meeting, the Board of Directors for the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) approved the "First Screening Report - Part 2" report. That report contained the HSRA's staff's recommendations regarding which route alignment options and which station location options should be removed from further consideration and which ones should be studied in more detail. A copy of that report's sections pertaining to Bakersfield are attached. The station sites recommended for further study in the Bakersfield area are as follows with descriptive comments from that report: Truxtun Avenue Site: "This potential downtown station site is located just east of the new Amtrak station in downtown Bakersfield near Truxtun Avenue and R Street. This proposed site maximizes the ddership and revenue potential, connectivity and accessibility, and is compatible with existing and planned development while minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources. The Truxtun site is one of the three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the BNSF or BNSF/UP alignment options from the north and serves the 15 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor." Golden State Avenue Site: "This potential downtown station site is located along the existing UP route that parallels Golden State Avenue in the northern part of downtown Bakersfield. This proposed site maximizes ridership and revenue potential while minimizing the impacts to social and economic resources. The Golden State site is one of the three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the UP alignment from the north, and serves the 15 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor." Bakersfield Airport Site: "This potential station site is located along the existing on the UP route just west of SR 99 and south of 7~h Standard Road, which is planned for freeway expansion. This proposed site is compatible with existing and planned development while minimizing the impacts on natural, social, economic and cultural resources. The Bakersfield Airport site is one of the three sites recommended by the Kern Transportation Foundation. This site is served by the UP alignment from the north, and serves the 15 and SR 58 connectors to the Los Angeles corridor." ADR - Design Section Public Works High Speed Rail Station in Bakersfield March 13, 2002, 2:20pm S:\PROJECTS~ARNOLD\HIGH SPEED RAIL~Admin Report 03_08_02.wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 3 The HSRA's screening report makes mention of recommendations by the Kern Transportation Foundation (KTF). A select number of KTF members worked with staff from the KernCOG, County of Kern and City of Bakersfield to evaluate potential sites for the high speed rail terminal. That evaluation consider many sites throughout the metropolitan area. It is interesting to note that, while completed prior to HSRA's screening report, the KTF committee made the same determination as to which sites should be considered for detailed study. Based on the conclusions of KernCOG's 1994 study, the KTF study and HSRA'$ screening report, staff recommends that the Joint Bodies adopt a position in favor of locating the Bakersfield high speed rail station in the vicinity of Truxtun Avenue at Union Avenue. ADR - Design Section Public Works High Speed Rail Station in Bakersfield March 13, 2002, 2:20pm S:\PROJECTS~ARNOLD\HIGH SPEED RAIL'tAdmin Report 03_08_02.wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IMEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: Bus'iness Item ITEM: 7.B. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council and Board of Supervisors APPROVED FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD c,"~. DATE: March 11, 2002 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Use of Portion of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for major roadway rehabilitation projects. RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: The Problem The City of Bakersfield, like many other cities throughout the United States, has a large backlog of deferred maintenance on its roadways. Simply put, rehabilitation needs far outpace revenues each and every year. Currently, the City receives approximately $6 million per year that can be used for roadway maintenance. Of this amount, $4 million comes from State gas tax and the remaining $2 million from Federal gas tax. The amount of revenue necessary to merely keep up with routine maintenance totals more than $15 million per year. As a result, the backlog of roadway rehabilitation has grown to more than $80 million and continues to grow each year. Much of this backlog occurs on our major streets (arterials and collectors) where the majodty of traffic travels. Initial proposed use of 10% funds Last June, the City requested that 10% of our STIP funds be reprogrammed for rehabilitation projects within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Based upon an initial budget of $145 million, 10% would have generated approximately $14 million within Metropolitan Bakersfield. Of that amount, about $8 million would have gone towards major roadways within Bakersfield city limits with the remaining funds going to Kern County. In addition to the original request, the City also requested that 10% of any future STIP dollars within the Metro- Bakersfield share also be programmed for rehabilitation projects. This initial proposal was never acted upon by KernCOG. Conversion of Kern River Freeway into Westside Parkway Subsequent to the City's initial request of 10% STIP funding for roadway rehabilitation, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern jointly approved Bakersfield System Study Alternative 15 which converted State Route 58 (Kern River Freeway) into a local facility we now call the Westside Parkway. This action bw March 11, 2002, 2:32pm G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPT~002~Marchl 1,2002.wpd resulted in a $25 million savings from the right of way portion of the project. Since the right of way portion is budgeted in the current fiscal year, these savings could be applied to projects immediately. Proposal First, the City is requesting that some funding dedicated to the urban share be moved from savings realized on the Westside Parkway to badly needed rehabilitation projects. Since it is from the urban share and the County agrees on a formula, the proposal does not impact any other jurisdiction financially. Since the money is savings resulting from the Kern River Freeway becoming a Parkway that required less right-of-way, the funds are already in the account. Because the newly defined proiect is less costly than the old, the request does not ever slow down the capital buildin.q project. Because the right-of-way monies are already available to us, the funds should be immediately available to us on KemCOG and CTC approval. The City is making this request to deal with the very real and difficult problems on our arterial streets. The Westside Parkway can remain the number one priodty and stay on schedule since this is from savings in the project cost. Simply put, we request a one time allocation of $20 million from project savings to be used for major roadway rehabilitation within Metropolitan Bakersfield. This will provide approximately $12 million for Bakersfield and $8 million for Kern County based upon a proportionate share of population. Additionally, this proposal was presented at a meeting of City Managers within Kern County on Friday, March 8, 2002. By unanimous vote, the proposal to re-allocate the above savings were approved by the City Manager's group. Recommendation: We, therefore recommend the City and County approve the one time diversion of project savings from the Westside Parkway into Rehabilitation projects within Metro-Bakersfield. bw March 11,2002, 2:32pm G:\G ROU PDATV~,DMIN R PT~2002W1arch 11,2002,wpd ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 IAGENDASECTION: . Bus~'in~ss Item ITEM: ?.C. TO: FROM: DATE: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Board of Supervisors ~ DEPARTMENT H EAD~___~._ Development Services - Planning March 5, 2002 SUBJECT: 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: Accept the draft update and endorse the process for adoption. BACKGROUND: The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern are jointly updating the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan adopted in 1990. Substantial changes in population, state and local laws and development patterns necessitated the need to 'ffreshen up" the text and land use map to accurately reflect the current development environment. An environmental consultant, RBF, was retained to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. City and County staff completed a review of the Administrative Draft EIR on March 4, 2002. The start of the 45-day public review period is expected to begin in April 2002. Changes to the general plan text were made in two primary categories: 1 ) Changes to make the text accurate, reflect actual conditions, and 2) To include relevant Vision 2020 policies, as endorsed by City Council and Board of Supervisors. Changes to the land use map are focused on the inclusion of those large county land use approvals made in the 1990's (McAIlister Ranch, Western Rosedale Specific Plan, Coberly-Etcheverry Ranch Specific Plan). All of these changes are necessary to achieve the goal of having a common Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Jointly adopting this provides for cooperative, integrated decision-making on planning goals for a project area of more than 400 square miles with a population of 400,000 people. The draft text and land use map are now complete and will be the subject of a public workshop on March 21,2002. City and County staff will conduct this workshop to introduce the overall project and public hearing process to those interested. March 6, 2002, 2:25pm ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Public meetings after this workshop will be "joint" city/county meetings with both jurisdictions' Planning Commissions presiding. This spring, there will be the first such meeting on the Draft EIR and later this summer there will be the second meeting, a hearing on the "project" (general plan text and land use map). Once the Planning Commissions have completed their work, thera are a variety of options to process the "update." Staff recommends the following, depending on whether there are outstanding issues from Planning Commissioner deliberations. If there are outstanding issues which could not be resolved by the Planning Commissions, then joint hearings by the Board of Supervisors and City Council would be scheduled. If there are no outstanding issues, the general plan update will be brought to the City Council and Board of Supervisors as routine hearings for adoption at their regularly scheduled meetings. The 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update is available in the City Clerk's office for review. MG:pjt (admin~mar',3-20-2010) March 7, 2002, 8:20am ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: Business Item ITEM: 7. D. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager March11 ,-2002 APPROVED DEPARTMENT HEAD CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER Report on Kern County Museum - "History for the Future" RECOMMENDATION: Council and Board of Supervisor's determination BACKGROUND: The Kern County Museum is beginning a fundraising effort called "History for the Future" campaign. Representatives from the museum will report to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors on the status of the fundraising effort and the projects they hope to complete with the funds. Attached is material from the museum website related to the fundraising effort. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IMEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: ITEM: 7oE. Business Item TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Manager March 11,2002 Airport Terminal at Meadows Field APPROVED DEPARTMENT HEAD /~,.-- CITY ATTORNEY ~ CITY MANAGER ~ RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: In September 2000, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Kern for a $2.5 million contribution to the new airport terminal. The MOU called for a reduction in the City's contribution if other state or federal grant funds were obtained in the future. Additional federal funding has been obtained for the terminal. It was anticipated that under the original agreement, the City contribution would be reduced from somewhere between $0 and $880,000. However, costs of the project have increased and the County would like the City to specify a minimum contribution. Discussions between the Airport Director and City Manager Fed to a joint recommendation that the amount not go below $1.5 million. At that level, the quality of the building should still be good. In October 2001, the City Council approve an amendment to the agreement which provided the City's contribution to be made only if the County awards a contract for construction within one year of the Amendment. The one-year term was provided as an incentive for the project to move forward. The amended agreement states that if no contract is awarded by the deadline, the City would have no financial obligation to the County for the terminal. To this point, for whatever reason, we have not received a signed copy of the amended agreement from the County. The source of the City's contribution will continue to be jail booking fee rebates from the State of California. The City's contribution is to be used for construction of the lobby, concessions, hold rooms, lobby traffic areas, and ticket areas in the terminal. AT/am March 13, 2002, 12:03pm S:\Admin Rpts\2002\joint meeting airport terminal update.wpd IMEETING DATE: March 18, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: Business Item ITEM: 7. F. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council and County Board of Supervisors Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Mamh 8, 2002 Coordination of Roadway Improvements APPROVED DEPARTMENT HEAD ,~~ C,TY ^TT CITY MANAGER ~ RECOMMENDATION: City Council and Board of Supervisors determination. BACKGROUND: There are several differences in the development standards between the City and the County. This is problematic at the interfaces between the jurisdictional boundaries, but it becomes a serious reason for concem in areas that the City annexes. Some of the differences between the agencies and examples are as follows: Landscape requirements along collectors and arterials - the new developments that Centex is developing between Jewetta and Allen is an example of the obvious difference in appearance between City/County requirements. City staff has been informed that County standards are now the same as City standards with respect to width of landscaping, but that change was made fairly recently and many of the tracts now being developed were approved prior to that change. Landscaped medians - the County does not require medians to be built or designed, nor do they collect fees for their construction or maintenance Adherence to adopted trails plans - City requires construction of trails per the County adopted trails plan and the County does not in a development right next door. An example is the Western Rosedale Trails Plan. The County requires only the payment of fees on the understanding that at an unspecified later date the County will install the trail. Access points on arterials - there is not enough communication between City and County staff on projects on the jurisdictional boundary. An example would be Delbert on Rosedale Highway where the signal was placed at the entrance to the NW Promenade instead of at Delbert Street, about 200 feet to the west. PE: urs G :\G ROU PDA'rSADMIN RPT~002~4ar 18~Dev~lopment_Standards.wpd March 13, 2002, 11:13~am ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: March18,2002 AGENDA SECTION: Business It. em ITEM: 7. (;. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: March 8, 2002 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Schedule for 2002 Joint City-County Meetings RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Joint City-County meeting on September 9, 2002. BACKGROUND: Finding dates in which all members of the Board of Supervisors and the Bakersfield City Council can meet is sometimes difficult. The members of both bodies are busy and have high demands on their time. It is prudent to identify future meeting dates far in advance to ensure all members are able to reserve the time. Three dates for the remainder of 2002 are being proposed. The joint first meeting was held on September 13, 1999. Four other joint meetings have been held since that time, as follows: March 20, 2000 and September 11,2000 March 19, 2001 and July 23, 2001 At past joint meetings, the Board and Council have expressed interest in meeting on a quarterly basis. However, logistical complications have restricted joint meetings to only two per year. The established pattern of having two meetings per year appears to be sufficient in resolving issues and ensuring the two jurisdictions work together in providing exemplary services to the public. Therefore, it is recommended that one additional meeting date for 2002 be established and confirmed - September 9, 2002. Two additional dates are being recommended for reservation in the event issues arise that need immediate attention in a joint meeting setting - June 17, 2002 and December 2, 2002. It is envisioned that the only other meeting in 2002 will be on September 9. But, reserving two additional dates now will accommodate additional meetings if they become necessary. All proposed dates are free of conflicts with any known official duties of all members.