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 Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benharn Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, February 2, 2004, 3:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 6, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3.' PUBLIC STATEMENTS Dave McArthur, North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District, requested the Committee consider changing the zoning of their facilities/parks in the City from OS (Open Space) to RE (Recreation). Committee Chair Couch requested staff to meet with North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District staff. In order to make this a formal referral, staff will place this issue on the Council agenda under Consent Calendar with a recommendation to refer to the' Planning and Development Committee. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding review of issues related to the General Plan Update and EIR Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained during the hearing process to update the General Plan several items were referred for staff follow up and Committee review. Staff prepared a list, which was included in the' Committee packet for the Committee's prioritization and direction to staff. Some of the items have already been addressed during the update process. Committee Chair Couch suggested to make the list more manageable, each Committee member choose items from the list for staff to work on and bring back to the Committee and address the balance of the list later. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page 2 The following issues were considered most important by the Committee Members. Committee Chair Couch · Policy on bus stops and turnouts to aid traffic flow** · Require Developers to offer solar as an option Committee Member Ma.q.qard · Specific Plan for the Northeast · Minimize light pollution to preserve the night sky Committee Member Benham · Alternative 15 and specifically Highway 58 realignments - would like an update from Public Works on Alternative 15 progress **City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained Golden Empire Transit (GET) has expressed opposition to turnouts because there is a traffic safety issue when busses attempt to enter back into the flow of traffic. The City Attorney was requested to do an analysis of traffic-related legal issues for the Committee. Stephan DeBranch, Castle and Cooke, spoke regarding park credits for open space in gated communities, which was discussed at the last Committee meeting. He would like to meet with staff to discuss their ideas on allowing developments to be more creative to enhance their projects. Staff will meet with Castle and Cooke and the park fee credit issue will be brought back to the Committee. Committee Member Maggard spoke regarding a PowerPoint presentation by Castle and Cooke at the Smart Growth Coalition meeting regarding standard livable communities, which included a list of disconnects where smart growth does not seem to mesh with the City's standard set of policies applied to subdivision developments. The Committee requested staff to view the PowerPoint presentation. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding air quality mitigation fees Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained the City's current practice has been to mitigate air quality impacts to a level less than significant as defined by the San. Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District); the District's emissions threshold for subdivision development projects is 10 tons/year for both project and cumulative emissions. This process has been challenged by the Sierra Club who argues that impacts are still significant and an EIR should be prepared for each project. Under threat of litigation and the delays AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page 3 it causes, developers are settling for payment of a fee per dwelling unit rather than allowing the courts -to decide if the application of the District's mitigation program complies with CEQA. The Development Services Director provided an overview on three proposed options to address challenges to air quality analysis (memorandum in packet). Option 1: Project Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) 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. With Option 1, any project consistent with the general plan and containing the same unavoidable impacts would have to make a new separate finding and statement of overriding consideration. To do this a project level EIR would be required. 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, a project EIR would be required. 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. Option 2: Miti,qation of Proiect Emissions to Zero Based on new information obtained from using the District's air quality model, it may now be possible to find that with mitigation, build out of the general plan can be accomplished without having significant unavoidable air quality impacts. Staff proposed fOr the Committee's consideration dropping the current practice to mitigate air quality impacts to a level less than significant, 10 tons/year for both project and cumulative emissions, as defined by the District's emissions threshold for subdivision development projects; and instead, require proiect non-attainment emissions be miti.qated to zero, thereby reducing air pollution more than is required by State law. Under this option, air quality analysis using the District's model would be required. Requiring mitigation that offsets all project emissions results in no impact and a mitigated negative declaration could be approved. Theoretically, there can be no requirement for a project EIR due to air quality impacts, if there are no impacts. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page 4 Mitigating emissions to zero would require more of what the developers are doing now, such as changing out agricultural diesel pump engines, old diesel tractors, crushing cars, concrete projects, advanced signalization, or other such measures, City Manager Alan Tandy explained if a developer mitigates their project's air pollution down to zero, thero is no roason for a fee, or the collection and administration of a fee. It is striving to achieve the same end through a more efficient and direct methodology in lieu of a fee, rather than a kind of secondary methodology of collecting a fee, and having programs with a third party charging an administrative fee. Option 3: Supplemental/Subsequent EIR A supplemental/subsequent EIR comes after completion and certification of a final EIR for a program plan, such as the general plan EIR. The guidelines state that when an EIR has been certified, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared 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 benefit of Option 3 is the Supplemental/Subsequent EIR would be applicable to all future projects and remove the need for individual project level EIR's to address air quality impacts. Based on new information obtained from using the District's 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. Challenges to the City's environmental review process may continue; however, the City's actions would be supported with an EIR enhancing the defensibility of the City's project approval actions. Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants, spoke regarding the recent settlements of $1,200 per dwelling unit, entities involved, and the need for required mitigation efforts to be fair and cost-effective per ton. Arthur Unger from the Sierra Club spoke regarding the recent settlements with developers and air pollution mitigation. Renee D. Nelson spoke regarding air quality mitigation fees. Brian Todd, Building Association of Kern County, spoke regarding imposing fees/regulations on new subdivisions and balancing the price of new more energy-efficient homes in an economically depressed area with a Iow to moderate income housing market. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI3-1'EE MEETING Monday, February 2, 2004 Page 5 Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, spoke regarding modeling, which would quantify air pollution emissions from new development; federal regulations on meeting attainment standards for PMt0/ozone; and working together on the · "?' "" ¥ "' best solution. Taking the approach in Option 2 that developers directly fund the mitigation to reduce the pounds of emissions to zero for their new developments rather than impose fees was discussed. Committee Member Maggard explained recent State Legislation requires the Air Pollution Control District to impose an air pollution fee, so it would require amending State Legislation. The Committee requested staff to analyze the costs for Option 2 to require project non-attainment emissions to be mitigated to zero and bring the information back to the Committee. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation on 2004 Planning and Development Committee meeting schedule Committee Member Maggard explained he had put the meeting schedule on his work calendar, which is now full through April. Committee Chair. Couch recommended adoption of the calendar with one agreed-upon change to move the August 9th meeting to August 16th. The Committee adopted the Committee meeting schedule with one change to August 16th. Committee Member Benham was absent for this item. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; and Planning Director Stan Grady 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; Arthur and Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Colon Bywater. and Dave McArthur, NOR Recreation and Parks District; Renee Nelson; Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants; Randy Bergquist, Porter-Robertson Engineering; and Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Council Committees\04Planningand Development Committee~p&d04feb02summary,doc