The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/02/2004 B A K .E R S F I E L D David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI'FrEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, February 2, 2004 - 3:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 6, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding review of issues related to the General Plan Update and EIR -- Hardisty 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding air quality mitigation fees -- Hardisty B. Discussion and Committee recommendation on 2004 Planning and Development Committee meeting schedule -- Stinson 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN~Council Committees~p&dO4FEBO2.doc ~ ~L~ ~~- David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, October 6, 2003, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Lorraine Unger spoke regarding the Air Pollution Control District meeting on T. hursday, October 9th at 1:30, at 2700 M Street, regarding hearing on air pollution mitigation fees. Committee Member Maggard said he would be interested to see if someone from staff could attend the meeting, as they will be discussing the monies to be collected and whether the funds stay local or migrate to the Fresno District Office. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Minimum Park Size and Park Credits for Gated Communities Development Services Director Jack Hardisty provided background information. In the mid-80's the City adopted a park standard, which required new development to provide 2-1~ acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The calculation was based on existing public parks and did not include private parks, trails, parkways, public open space, bicycle/equestrian trails, golf courses or AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 2 other private recreational facilities. Although not included in the baseline measurement for public parks, the City's ordinance does allow some partial credit for trails and private parks as deemed appropriate. It seems the City now faces two different expectations. One is the ability to .get credit toward required public parkland bY substituting private recreational and open space land, and the other is to acquire even more conveniently located neighborhood parks and begin requiring community parks. If the City wants community parks, neighborhood parks, smaller parks, open space and trails intergrading into future developments, it may be time to reevaluate the baseline standards and the requirements to provide them. · Community parks are in the General Plan as part of the park system, but the General Plan only authorizes the diversion of neighborhood park funds for development of community parks when they serve the same neighborhoods. The Development Services Director spoke regarding whether parks in gated developments should be given park credit. There may be certain standards that justify such a credit, and the existing ordinance provides authority to determine when that might be' appropriate. However, staff does not view a private recreational facility within a gated subdivision for the exclusive use of its residents as providing the same community benefit that a public park provides in regard to flexibility and use of parkland and activities. Some parks are better suited for soccer and others for baseball, basketball, or other activities. Committee Member Benham explained her idea was to give the developer more flexibility, but not take away from the public park concept. Steve DeBranch spoke regarding creating incentives for the development community to go beyond providing just the standard minimum park. Committee Member Maggard spoke regarding the differences between the southwest and the northeast where you can drive a long way before there is a park. He would like to modify the ordinance to accommodate designing walkable communities. John Cicerone spoke regarding large gated communities versus gated subdivisions. Large gated communities with park amenities relieve the stress on the public parks system and there should be a consideration for the gated communities with limited age requirements, as they have different recreational needs. Pauline Larwood spoke regarding the need for beautification and flexibility in the design of communities, because she would not like to see all gated communities with block walls in the northeast. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 3 Committee Chair Couch wanted to add the issue of allowing smaller two or three acre parks and requested staff to explore the issue of maintenance of the smaller parks ~becoming the responsibility of homeowner associations. City Manager Alan Tandy suggested staff meet with the different interested parties to define the scope of consideration and direction before this issue goes before the Planning Commission for their review. The Committee unanimously referred the issue to staff. Staff will meet With the interested parties, including NOR Parks and Recreation, developers and the BIA and report back to the Committee by the end of the year if possible. B, Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Zoning Process - Big Box Centers Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained the City can regulate commercial use based on size or impact on land use planning, but cannot have regulations that relate to certain businesses by name, such as "Target." Committee Chair Couch stated he referred this issue to the Committee to get started with a review, because if this is the new reality of commercial development, City ordinances may not cover several applications. The City might need to adopt standards to site these developments appropriately. For example, should they be required to locate at intersections on arterials, or at least require three or four streets around the development for proper traffic circulation? Committee Member Benham requested a review of design standards. For example, loading docks should not face a street, or provide a design or wall to screen the docks from public view. Committee Chair Couch requested staff to proVide information on the size, location and number of empty big box centers in Bakersfield over 75,000 sq. ft. Committee Member Maggard requested staff to review the authority the City has to require certain standards of maintenance for parking lots, landscaping, and buildings for those big box centers that are left empty, as well as those that are coming back into use that have deteriorated. Staff will review and bring the requested information back to the Committee. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Joint City/County Planning Commission Committee Chair Couch explained he referred this item to the Committee because a letter was received from the Smart Growth Coalition regarding formation of a joint city/county planning commission and he wanted to provide an answer. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT DRAFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 4 Development Services Director Jack Hardisty expressed there has been some concern regarding planning in the metropolitan area. While it is true improvement can always be made, having two planning commissions meet together may not result in improvement. The secret of success in making the community better is agreement between the City Council and Board of Supervisors and the adoption and application of policies to improve planning guidelines. The City Council cannot delegate their authority over land use decisions. The same is true of the Board of Supervisors. The City Council and the Board of Supervisors are the responsible entities for how their jurisdictions are governed. It is permissible to have the Planning Commissions meet together, but the City Planning Commission must make their decisions/recommendations to the City Council and the County Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. Due to jurisdictional issues, each Planning Commission must vote separately. The City and the County are not the entities that would form a joint city/county planning commission, even if the current Planning Commissions were dissolved. If requested, the State Legislature has the authority to form a joint planning commission and delegate the Council and Board's authority over land use decisions to another commission, because .it takes a State Legislative Act. Once a planning commission is formed by the State, that commission would have authority over all land use decisions for the jurisdictions it serves, and it may not be possible to change the legislation once it is enacted. Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, asked if there is some type of committee mechanism that could be formed from each Planning Commission for the metro area. Committee Member Maggard expressed neither the members of the City Council nor the members of the Board of Supervisors have met and agreed there should be uniform standards of development throughout the Greater Bakersfield area. If both the City Council and Board of Supervisors want to make joint uniform development policies, then both Planning Commissions could simply implement the policies. City Manager Alan Tandy explained this has been discussed in the past and although the Board members have changed, the County indicated their development standards are very close to those of the City with a limited number of variances and exceptions. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty stated the City and County have been working together on some standards, such as billboards, sewer service for new development and refuse collection and progress has been made. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT AF ' PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 6, 2003 Page 5 The Committee Members agreed establishing uniform development standards in the Greater Bakersfield area is a worthy goal; however, the Committee Members did not recommend forming a joint city/county planning commission as they would not consider delegating the Council's authority over land use decisions to another joint entity. Committee Chair Couch requested staff to respond to the letter from the Smart Growth Coalition explaining the reasons for not recommending a joint city/county planning commission. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Member Maggard commented on the growing issue of overnight parking by semi-trucks in shopping center parking lots, examples were at the northeast corner of Mt. Vernon and University and the lower deck of East Hills Mall. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Planning Director Stan Grady; and Parks Supervisor Ken Trone Attendance-others: Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern; Stephan DeBranch, Castle & Cooke; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Cai Rossi; John Cicerone, Mountain View Bravo; Colon Bywater and Dave McArthur, NOR Recreation and Parks District; and John, video camera, channel 17 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Council Committees~p&d03oct06summary,doc B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM January 30, 2004 TO: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: ~'/7/~anley C. Grady, Pla'nr~ing Director SUBJECT: Comments of the General Plan Update and EIR Attached is a list of items referred to committee to provide further review of issues raised during the hearing to approve the General Plan Update and certify the EIR. SCG:djl Attachment P:\Memos\GPA update EIR for CC.doc Councilmember Couch 1. More descriptive language regarding alternative 15. 2. Groundwater recharge - wants water input on zone changes in recharge area 3. Specific Plans - would like to discuss how useful would they be. 4. "Encourage" used a lot in the plan. Would like to have those policies better defined. 5. Would like bus stops and turnouts if we are encouraging the use of transit. 6. What can we do to assure the plan implementation will not contribute to our air quality problems? 7. Require developers to offer solar as an option. Councilmember Benham Respond to remaining issues by Gordon Nipp such as. 1. Light pollution 2. View shed/Ridgelines 3. Urban Growth boundaries 4. Alternative 15 and 58 realignment, what will these look like 5. Comment on land use changes impacting ag land conversion. Gordon Nipp Comments on General Plan 1. Urban Growth boundaries as a third alternative 2. Specific Plan for the northeast 3. Require photovoltaic panels on new homes 4. Ordinance designed to minimize light pollution 5. View shed ordinance requiring setbacks from the bluffs 6. Study the impact of OHV use in metropolitan Bakersfield 7. EIR -address cultural & historic resources of east Bakersfield 8. Policy' phrases should be strengthened 9. Circulation element should contain goals & policies incorporating light rail and expanded bus service. B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM January 29, 2004 TO: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director FROM: ~ Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Proposed Options to Address Challenges to Air Quality Analysis Appeals to the approval of tentative tract and parcel maps based on CEQA challenges have resulted in the establishment of a false policy precedent. Settlements and agreements between the Sierra Club and developers have done nothing to settle the Sierra Club's perception that there is something wrong with the environmental review process. I believe the City needs to take steps to regain control of the application of mitigation measures to development projects through the implementation of CEQA. We should apply CEQA in a manner that strengthens our findings regarding air quality impacts and creates a strong record of our decision making process. In an effort to move towards a solution to the dilemma, I have the following recommendations: 1. Project level EIR's 2. Mitigation to zero 3. Supplemental/Subsequent EIR 1. Proiect Environmental Impact Reports The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan EIR addressed potential environmental impacts that could result from build out of the plan. Air quality was found to be significant and unavoidable based on the valley being non-attainment for ozone precursors. Prior to Communities for a Better Environment vs. California Resources Agency the statement of overriding considerations adopted in a general plan program EIR could be applied at the project level environmental review. The intent being that for significant unavoidable impacts CEQA was met with the general plan EIR. CEQA was complied with because the public was advised through a series of hearings that development under the general plan was desirable even with significant unavoidable impacts. The courts disagreed with CEQA guidelines that allow tiering. Now, any project consistent with the general plan and containing the same unavoidable impacts must make a new separate finding and statement of overriding consideration. To do this a project level EIR would be required. Jack Hardisty January 29, 2004 Page 2 To determine if a project level EIR would be required, an initial study would be prepared. If no significant unmitigated impacts were determined, a negative declaration could be filed. If not, an EIR would be required. Our current practice has been to mitigate air quality impacts to a level less that significant as defined by the San Joaqui~n Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD). This applies to the Districts project and cumulative impact thresholds. This process has been challenged by the Sierra Club, which has requested that EIR's be prepared for projects that have used the Districts GAMAQI model. Under threat of litigation and the delay it causes, developers are settling for payment of a fee rather than allowing the courts to decide if the application of the Districts mitigation program complies with CEQA. A project EIR would not be as voluminous as the general plan EIR but has the same noticing, hearing and review requirements. The process could be as short as six months or as long as one year. This option would require an EIR for all project approvals, providing a stronger CEQA record should a case be challenged and set for trial. 2. Mitiqation Proiect Emissions to Zero The District emissions threshold for development projects is 10 tons/year for both project and cumulative emissions. We currently require projects to mitigation to or below the threshold. However the Sierra Club argues that impacts are still significant and an EIR should be prepared. Requiring mitigation that off sets all project emissions results in no impact and a mitigated negative declaration can be approved. Theoretically, there can be no requirement for an EIR due to air quality impacts if there are no impacts. Under this option, air quality analysis using the District's model would be required. Project non-attainment emissions would have to be fully mitigated. With full mitigation there would be no impact. 3. Supplemental/Subsequent EIR's An EIR is a detailed information document which analyzes significant effects, identifies mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives. Regardless of the type of EIR, they all serve the same purpose as previously stated. What varies is the action requiring environmental review and the decisions associated with that action. The action could be a program, plan, or project requiring approval with environmental review of the action based on what is known and ripe for discussion. A supplemental/subsequent EIR comes after completion and certification of a final EIR for a program plan or project. The guidelines state that when an EIR has been certified no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless certain conditions are met. One of the conditions is that "mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment..." The intent is to provide a mechanism for addressing new information without having to prepare another complete EIR for the same action. Jack Hardisty January 29, 2004 Page 3 The general plan EIR found that air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable because of the Valleys none attainment status. Subsequent to the certification of the general plan EIR staff began requiring air quality studies and mitigation consistent with the Districts threshold of significance. All projects are required to mitigate their emissions to or below the threshold of 10 tons/year. However, the Sierra Club is challenging the studies and requesting EIR's for all the projects. Based on this new information obtained from using the Districts air quality model, it may now be possible to find that with mitigation build out of the general plan can be accomplished without having a significant unavoidable air quality impact. A supplemental/subsequent EIR would be given the same notice and public review as the primary document. The benefit of this option is the EIR would be applicable to all future projects and remove the need for individual project level EIR's to address air quality impacts. These recommendations can strengthen our environmental review process and allow the City to regain control of the application of mitigation through the implementation of CEQA. Challenges to our environmental review process may continue despite these changes. However, our actions will be supported with an EIR enhancing the defensibility of our project approval actions. SCG:djl CC: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney P:\Memos\Solutions to Sierra Club 1-29-04.doc B A K E R S F I E. L D MEMORANDUM '" July 7, 2003 ? .......... - ' JUL - 9 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ......... FROM: ,..~/Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Air Pollution Mitigation Fee - Program Considerations An impact fee can be applied in tandem with other available measures to reduce project impacts to less than significant or it can be used alone to fully mitigate impacts that are solely the responsibility of a project. In either case, the goal of a fee based mitigation program is to fund mitigation that reduces emissions to less than significant. The mitigation should result in actual emissions reduction that is.real, enforceable, quantifiable and permanent. Considerations for an impact fee should include the following: 1. A fee can be fixed or variable based on adopted standards for measuring impacts. A fixed fee is associated with project mitigation which is established as part of a fee program. A variable fee may have a range based on factors such as project type, size and location or it may require that a study and determination be made on a project by project basis as part of the project review process. 2. A fee should be in addition to and not a replacement of existing mitigation. There are vehicle emission reduction programs and other programs aimed at improving air quality that are operated by the Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control ~ District. The nexus document for a new program or mitigation fee would need to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of these programs so that a determination can be made as to whether there is any unmitigated impact requiring a new program to mitigate that impact, or if a more aggressive application of existing rules, programs and authority by responsible agencies could achieve the same goal. 3. A fee should reduce to a level less than significant any unmitigated impacts. The fee should be the result of knowing what needs to be done. What will be done with the fee should be included in the nexus document. Impacts will need to be identified and described sufficient enough to measure significance and determine what level of mitigation needs to be applied. Alan Tandy, City Manager July 7, 2003 Page 2 4. There should be a reasonable connection between the impact being mitigated and the impact created by a project. The relationship between an impact and prescribed mitigation should be direct. As with the traffic impact fee, projects add trips to the roadway. Therefore, necessary circulation system improvements are identified, priced and a proportionate share is paid as a mitigation fee. The same methodology should be applied to an air pollution mitigation fee. The mitigation should contribute directly to reducing the impacts from a project. 5. The fee should not exceed the proportionate share of project related impacts. There should be a direct relationship between impacts, a projects proportional contribution to an impact, and the amount.of an impact fee assessed a project. 6. There should be a reasonable connection between the fee expenditures and the action taken to reduce an impact to less than significant. Expenditures of mitigation fees would need to correlate to reduction in impacts. This is project specific and time sensitive. Mitigation expenditures should relate to a reduction in project specific impacts within a time frame that reduces the impacts to less than significant prior to completion of the project. A determination needs to be made as to what the threShold will be for paying the fee. Documentation would need to show at what level and for which projects payment of a fee would be required in order to fund an action that would reduce project impacts to less than significant. 7. A determination must be made as to what change is needed to reduce project level impacts to less than significant and at what level the impact is occurring; regional, area-wide, or local. Projects can generate impacts that are localized or impacts may extend to a broad area or a region. This information will impact decision making regarding what needs to be done and will be done to reduce an impact to less than significant. This information is a critical component in determining the scope of a mitigation fee program. The fee amount and mitigation actions are based on activities identified through this process that will have the effect of reducing an impact to less than significant. In a separate memorandum the City Attorney provided information regarding the legal framework for establishing an impact fee. In summary the requirements are as follows: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified (can be identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, General or Specific Plan requirements, or other public documents identifying the public improvements); Alan Tandy, City Manager July 7; 2003 Page 3 3. Determine the reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is being imposed; 4. Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project; 5. Determine the reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the. cost of the public facility (or portion of the public facility) attributable to the development. Any impact fee program requires public hearings and is subject to a delay of 60 days after approval before the new fee becomes effective. Mitigation performed by the developer would be credited to the developer against the fee based on the reasonable cost of the mitigation. If a state or air district program allows for purchasing credits from other projects that have reduced emissions below project requirements, then the effect could be less actual revenues occurring to perform local mitigation identified in an adopted fee program. SG:djl CC: Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney Ginny Gennaro, Deputy City Attorney II Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director P:\pollution mit fee.doc B A K E R S F I E L D August 28, 2003 TO: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director FROM tanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Proposed SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review Fee The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District held meetings with Planning Directors this week to discuss their program to develop an indirect source review fee. I met with them on Wednesday, August 27~, along ~th Ted James and the acting Director from Wasco. The District is on a ~o year time frame to develop and adopt an indirect source fee program. They plan to conduct public scoping meetings in October 2003, workshops in December 2003 and Februa~ and May 2004, and begin program development and environmental process in mid 2004. As planned, industrial, commercial, and residential development will be required to pay a fee based on new trips generated by the project. Because this was a pre-scoping meeting no real details were available regarding fee amount or structure of the program. However, there was a handout that outlined three options for implementing the program which had either the District or cities and counties conducting reviews and assessing fees. It isn't clear if the District will develop the program as a CEQA mitigation fee to reduce project emissions or a mitigation fee using Section 66000 of the Government Code to develop a funding mechanism to suppo~ emissions reduction effo~s already ongoing within the air basin. Although presented as necessa~ to achieve emissions reductions stipulated in their State Implemen~tion Plan, District staff couldn't conclusively state that with this new pr~ram the District will reach a~ainment or that it ~11 have a signEicant impact on emissions reduction. One aspect I found troubling was the idea of allowing credits for what I te~ed so~ mitigation, items such as bigger trees, bus stops, and street trees. These items and others represent good urban design b~ do not reduce emissions. They may encourage walking or use of buses but not for the catego~ of trips that need to be eliminated to have quantifiable emissions reductions. I suggested that the structure of the program focus on hard mitigation, the kind that result in measurable emission reduction such as removing gross polluters, retrofiring diesel engines, fleet conversion to Iow emission vehicles or other similar effo~s. If they are going to go through the process to develop a fee program the end result should be improved air quali~ not just improved street appearance and access to transit. These urban design, land use and development elements can be implemented by cities and counties without a new fee using existing authori~ contained in the California Government Code. We are on the Districts email and mailing list to be notified of upcoming meetings and to receive dra~s of documents as they are prepared. I will keep you informed as information becomes available. CC: Alan Tandy, Ci~ Manager P:~Memos~lSF air quali~ SG,d~ Program Options for Indirect Source Review District Permit Proqram · This option would have the District perform a detailed.analysis and impose conditions of approval and/or assess a fee. · The ISR permit process could start during CEQA review or during the permit application process for the land use project. · The District would collect the fee under this option. City/County Review · This option would have the cities and counties conduct a review and/or assess a fee based on certain criteria. · The entities could start the review process during CEQA or during the permit application process. · The entity would collect the fee with other permit fees and transfer the funds to a District account. District Review · This option would have the District conduct a review and assess a fee based on certain criteria. · The District.could start the review process during CEQA review or during the permit application process for the land use project. · The fee amount could be based on a simple checklist and assessed by the entity, or the District could notify the city or county of the fee amount. · The city or county would collect the fee with the other permit fees. Fee · This option would allow cities and counties to charge a fee based on certain criteria, such as size or number of units. · The cities or counties could assess and collect the fees under this option. Under all options, any fees collected would be used to mitigate emissions in a cost- effective manner. ~' General I Development Project Application l Subm tted . · !Application Process ~,~ Incomplete and ISR I Preliminary Review ? - Highlighted items indicate '" i AdditiOnal '- InformatiOn possible areas for ___., _ "'"" Provided ISR invoJvment i Applicati°n 1Complete Project Exempt J Neg Dec or EIR from CEQA j Required ~ormit A~plication i Submitted Over the Counter Permit ~ Plan Check Review.I ....... approval i ' ..-" Corrections .................. ~ Yes · '" I Needed? Approve Permitt. i No : and Assess Fees !' ........ San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Augusl 25. 2003 CALIFORNIA, INC. Bruce Freeman President July 7, 2003 Alan Tandy - City Manager .......... '" "' .. City of Bakersfield 1501 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Alan, A great deal of momentum has developed recently for the imposition of an "air quality" impact 'fee. This appears to be motivated by a political pragmatism to appease the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Control District, the EPA, and litigious no-growth groups like the Sierra Club. These groups do have, unfortunately, the power to take control of local policy-making and inflict harm on our community if their demands are not met. However, we should resist the simplistic notion that we can buy our way to cleaner air by merely paying a one time fee for each new home built. These funds will ultimately be dissipated into politically determined · pet projects, together with (permanently) higher governmental administration and monitoring costs for such pet projects. My common sense tells me that any such fee is unlikely to have a measurable impact on our local air quality. I would, therefore recommend that we develop a list of community design features that focus more on efficient traffic and transportation design, more livable, walkable neighborhoods (shorter blocks, increased tree canopy, more frequent parks, higher densities, reduced street widths, etc.) that encourage walking and discourage driving o to create lasting improvements to air quality in lieu of a fee. A fee should be justified only as a last resort when a new housing development is unable to build in permanent mitigations such as those suggested above. This might be the case in small infill projects or projects targeted to achieve desired leVels of affordability. I am confident that members of the development community can work with local elected representatives and their staffs to create criteria that future developments can incorporate to help us achieve cleaner air. All of us are responsible for improving the quality of our air. Simply paying a fee, in lieu of building lasting mitigations into our developments, seems the easy way out. Sincerely, Bruce President Castle & Cooke kbg 10000 Stockdale Highway (93311) · P.O. Box 11165 · Bakersfield, CA 9338%1165 · (661) 664-6544 · Fax (661) 664-6030 , Wednesday, July 9, 200~ THE BAKERSFIELD CAUFORNIAN B7 Community Voices AirPT~J~. developerclean-up feew must be valleywide he settlement between the Sierra Club and a o~n,ey / in northeast Bakersfield charac- -- Araa' terized by ~ Co~ifor~/~n as"aprivate deal"- not one for seL~g public policy. I agree. The public policy regarding air pollution emissions related to development projec~ was established with buses and .ridesharing. The assumption is that mass the 1988 Californi~ Clean Air AcL It reengnized devel- Ix~ansit wi~ replace personalvehicle use for some trips. opmentasanindirectsourceofemissionsandcorrect- In 2002, the air district no~ed that in the 13 years ly made it a regional issue requiring a regions] control since the public hearings on the draft ISR fee, air quail- strategy. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control tylms improved. The problemis that it is not improving District has been given the authority to develop area- fast enougk Likely that is because people are driving wide source and indirect source control programs, more miles daily, thereby generating more emissions. Bakersfieldisoneof64citiesina23,000-square-mile Since development generates trips from passenger air basin which is 250 miles long and encompasses vehicles, the focus has shifted from tailpipe emissions eight counties. A regional air pollution problem needs to residential, commercial and industrial projects cre- a regional control strategy, ated by developmenL Fees to lessen or reduce the impact that a develop- Emission-reduction strategies and their success or fail- ment may have on the. environment are a standard ureisbasedondistrictwideslrategies. All mles adopted by method for reducing an impact to a less-than-signifi- the district am uniformly applied throughout the air dis. cant level. It isn't the fee that reduces the impact~ It is tricL Success is based on improvements within the district what is done with the fee that matters. An indirect source fee implemented in the city of In 1990, the air districtconductedpubllchearingson Bakersfield may generate funds to construct projects a drafC "indirect source review" fee based on the thatwouldfurthertheurbandesignobjectivesofsome authority granted to the district by the Clean Air A~ groups and individuals. But, without a valleywide pro- The concept behind the ISR fee is that development gram implemented by the air district, a fee supported creates vehicle trips and vehicles generate emissions, by a recent Californian editorial, it will fail to reduce As a result, development"indirectly" contributes to air tailpipe emissious or achieve the goals ofthe California pollution. The reasoning is that development should Clean Air AcC pay a fee to reduce this indirect conlTibution. Stanley Gradll is Bakersfield's planngn~ The fee would not be used to clean up emissions director. Com~unitll Voi~es is an expanded com- from the direct source -- vehicle tailpipe emissions, mentary that may contain ~p to 500 words. The Instead, it would fund projects like regional trausit sys- Califol~i_an reserves the right to republish con- tem improvements, regional mil lines and facilities, trib,ted commentaries in all formats, including regional off-street bicycle trails, replacement of diesel on its Webpage. B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: JANUARY 30, 2004 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DAVID COUCH, CHAIR SUE BENHAM, MEMBER MIKE MAGGARD, MEMBER FROM: JOHN W. STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER '~ SUBJECT: COMMITTEE MEMBER RESPONSES TO PROPOSED 2004 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE At the direction of Committee Chair David Couch, a memorandum was sent to Committee Members on January 8th with a tentative Planning and Development Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, February 2, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. and a 2004 draft Committee meeting schedule with a request to contact John Stinson with any needed changes. The following is a list of dates and times that were sent out. A column has been added with comments received from Committee Members for discussion at the February meeting. Day Date Time Comments Monday March 1 3:00 p.m. Change to 1:00 p.m. Monday April 5 3:00 p.m. Conflicting date. Monday May 3 1:00 p.m. Monday June 14 1:00 p.m. Monday July 19 1:00 p.m. Monday August 9 1:00 p.m. Conflicting date. Monday September 13 1:00 p.m. Monday October 11 1:00 p.m. Monday November 8 1:00 p.m. Monday December 6 1:00 p.m. cc: City Manager SCHEDULED MEETINGS ~$FI~LD CI~Y C@[~NCIL JANUARY 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 2004 REGULAR MEETING BEGINS @ 5:i5 PM IL--Il BUDGET MEETING & PRESENTATIONS CONTINUED AT 7:00 PM Monday's (El Noon, Wednesday's @ 5: i 5pm Hearing on 6/9, Adoption on 6/23 Holidays - City Ha~i C~osed ~ Joint City/County Meeting FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL JUNE Jt ER )BER ER DECEMBER S:\John\Council Committees\04Planning&Development\PROPOSED 04Calendar