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