Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2004 B A K E R S F I E L D ~-~~ David Couch, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI'R'EE MEETING Monday, August 16, 2004 -1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham; and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT APRIL 26, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendations regarding proposed cell phone tower ordinance Principal Planner Jim Eggert provided an overview of the proposed ordinance and permitting process to provide for camouflage of towers with man made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, or other similar designs that screen or conceal the presence of the towers. Committee Chair Couch made a motion to forward the ordinance to the Planning Commission for hearing. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Sierra .Club response to voluntary plan to mitigate development project non-attainment air quality emissions to zero Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained a Report had been sent to the City Council outlining a voluntary air pollution mitigation program. Developers could choose to work with the City to include mitigation measures, such as fleet and other equipment conversions to clean-burning engines, to balance their project's air pollution impacts to zero. The Council was interested in how the Sierra Club would react to this type of program. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, August 16, 2004 Page 2 The Sierra Club sent a letter of response, which was included in the Committee packet. City Manager Alan Tandy pointed out the letter referred to $1,200 per house and committing developers to mitigation projects of equivalent value or more. However, when the idea arose, staff had in mind a program to reduce project emissions to zero in order to reduce pollution. If a developer mitigates the project's non-attainment emissions to zero, then emissions are zero. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, spoke regarding the reference in the letter to $1,200. He explained the Sierra Club is not suggesting developers pay the fee and also mitigate emissions to zero; however, the amount of projects chosen to mitigate the emissions should have at least a value of $1,200 per house. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained the proposed plan was to run the model to get a baseline of emissions from the project and then the developer would choose from a list of mitigation measures, which would provide credits to offset the emissions from the project to balance out to zero. Committee Chair Couch explained the plan was put forth in order to provide an opportunity to mitigate a project's emissions to zero, and in exchange get agreement from the Sierra Club not to bring a lawsuit against the project for air pollution. The goal is to get cleaner air and it is going to be costly. The City does not want to spend funds and not get the result of stopping lawsuits on every project. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, stated if you have a good honest program that does reduce emissions to zero, it is extremely unlikely that the Sierra Club would bring lawsuits at least not on air quality. However, the National Sierra Club will not give up its option for litigation. Committee Member Maggard would like to know if the local chapter could ask the National Sierra Club if there is a set of parameters they could defined whereby the Sierra Club would make an exception and agree not to bring lawsuits. City Manager Alan Tandy asked if a residential development of 250 or 500 houses were used for a sample and an expert were hired to.do a calculation to develop a conversion table (for example one garbage truck conversion equals "x" amount of houses), could the City develop a template/model in order to reach an understanding. Gordon Nipp, Sierra Club, expressed he had no doubt that something like that would work. The proposal to reduce to zero emissions is a wonderful step. However, he felt the City should be focusing more on how we are going to clean the air and less on whether the Sierra Club will be filing lawsuits. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, August 16, 2004 Page 3 Harry Love, Sierra Club, expressed they would be interested in looking at a measurable template as discussed by the City Manager. The Committee asked staff to get detail on a model and develop a conversion table for a template/model by the end of the year. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding appeals of extension of vesting rights - (This item heard first.) Planning Director Stan Grady gave an overview of the memorandum in the Committee packet regarding tentative and final map processes. Tentative Vestin.q Map Life. The vesting rights for a map start on the date the tentative map application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. Since the developer controls when each phase is recorded, the vesting rights for a map can easily last for 8 or 9 years. It is not a fixed time period because it depends on when each phase is recorded during the life of the tentative tract. Final Map Recorded. The City's ordinance provides that once the map is final and recorded, it starts a clock and the vesting rights to develop last for a period of one year. The developer may seek an extension of vested rights for another one year period. This one year extension is discretionary and requires no special findings. Public Works Director Raul Rojas explained the Public Works Department is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to allow extensions of vesting rights for two tracts. The extensions of time allow the developers (Castle and Cooke and Centex Homes) to avoid the newly adopted Transportation and Park Development Fees. The difference between the old and new fees is $170,565 in lost revenue to the City. Also, Mclntosh and Associates is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny extensions of vesting rights on two other tracts (Developer - Castle and Cooke). If the Planning Commission's decision is overturned and the extensions of time for vesting rights are approved, the loss in revenue to the City between the old fees and the new Traffic and Park Development Fees would be $390,258. The Public Works Director further explained, Castle and Cooke went through the Assessment District Program to fund the public improvements for their new development. They built all of the improvements in advance. This is good for the City because everything is in place before the subdivision is built, and it works equally well for the developer because they use the financing program. When Castle and Cooke put in all the improvements, they recorded several maps, but were not ready to start construction to develop all the maps at one time. When AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNIN, G AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, August 16, 2004 Page 4 the maps were recorded, it started the one-year clock. They are now requesting the one-year extensions. Staff felt these mOnies are needed and the extensions should not be granted. Citywide there are several other developments that will be requesting one-year extensions to be able to develop under the old fee. If the level of activity for extensions of vesting rights in 2004 is similar to last year's and if extensions of vesting rights continue to be granted, it is estimated the City would give up approximately $3.2 million in Transportation and Park Development fees. As there is a long delay due to the complexity of establishing the fees, when new fees are adopted the City is always in a catch-up position. Russell Johnson, Centex Homes, spoke regarding the fees and stated that they would not have recorded the maps had they been aware one-year extensions would not be granted. Committee Chair Couch explained a year or two ago, direction was given to staff not to give anymore discretionary extensions and asked staff to review the meeting summaries. The Public Works Director explained it was commonplace before the work started on the new Traffic Impact Fees to grant vesting extensions. Timelines were discussed and staff thought they had clear direction not to continue with discretionary extensions. Stephan DeBranch, Castle and Cooke, spoke about the fees and he was not aware the City was changing its policy regarding the discretionary one-year vesting extension approval, although they attended the Committee meetings regarding adopting the new Transportation Development Fees. Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke, spoke about the extension of vesting rights and they were not aware of the policy change not to grant the one-year extensions. Since they have already put in the infrastructure including the arterials, which is of benefit to the City, it seems the City would grant the one~ year extension of vesting rights. If extensions are not granted, developers will probably not put the infrastructure in place prior to building. Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh Associates, spoke regarding park development fees and extensions of vesting rights. City Manager Alan Tandy explained when the Council was considering the fees, there was clear direction the fee schedules be developed in such a way that it would pay for the needed infrastructure. Not granting discretionary vesting extensions seemed a logical step to ensure the needed money would be collected. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, August 16, 2004 Page 5 Committee Member Maggard wanted on the record for discussion if it is conceivable if we make exceptions, that we establish a date certain by which the development community will know after that date, there will be no more discretionary extensions. Public Works Director Raul Rojas expressed if the City makes exceptions to allow granting extensions in some instances for public benefit and not in others, it becomes subjective and staff would have to evaluate each project and those not granted extensions would always appeal. Although staff would rather not make exceptions, having a date certain would be easier to administer. Committee Chair Couch suggested several ideas to ascertain the number of recorded maps this would affect in order to forecast the amount of money involved. With the Committee's agreement, he will get together with staff and see if there is a way to project the dollars involved without pulling every permit, or if there is a tremendous amount of staff time involved, an estimate will be used. The Committee asked staff to review the meeting summaries where fee schedules were discussed to see if there was clear direction regarding granting discretionary extensions and who was in attendance at the meetings..,Also, report back to the Committee on how other vesting extension requests have been handled at the Planning Commissioh level. 6. COMMI'I-rEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Planning Director Stan Grady; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and Principal Planner Jim Eggert Attendance-others: Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh and Associates; Stephan DeBranch and Bruce Freeman, 'Castle and Cooke; Russell Johnson, Centex Homes; James Burger, The Bakersfield Californian; Gordon Nipp and Harry Love, Sierra Club cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers P:\draffp&dO4aug16summary.doc