Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D ~ ~ David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, September 8, 2003, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT JULY 23, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees Public Works Director Raul Rojas provided background. At the last Committee meeting staff recommended an adjusted fee of $7,089 per single family unit, $4,352 per multi-family unit and tripling the fee for commercial and industrial. The Committee moved the fees forward to the July 30th Council meeting for review and comment with a provision to provide the Board of Supervisors time and flexibility to suggest changes. The Councilmembers provided comment and scheduled a hearing for the September 10th City Council meeting and recommended continuing the hearing to the Joint City/County meeting on September 15, 2003 for adoption of the Phase III Transportation Development Fee Program. The Public Works Director explained City and County staffs have met and made changes to the facilities list to be able to recommend lower fees and also offer an option with a different fee (lower) in the "core" of the City where many of the transportation improvements are already in place. Staff emphasized the cost of the needed 2020 facilities remains the same, but the cost funded by impact fees has been reduced by identifying items on the list that have other funding sources. Approximately $40 million of the right-of-way component was eliminated; dedication AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 2 of right-of-way is already a requirement of development under the subdivision regulations. Many of the collector roads, for a total of approximately $77 million, were removed from the list as construction of these collectors is also a requirement of development. Also removed from the list was approximately $8 million in changes to projects, revised freeway funding levels and recognizing that the West Beltway need not be constructed until after 2020. The above actions changed the total facilities list program costs from $531 million to $406 million enabling a recommendation for lower fees. The Public Works Director stated staff's recommendation was the "Core Area" concept, which includes an area in the southeast part of the City with lower fees of $2,882 per single family unit and $1,383 per multi-family unit in the "Core Area" and "Non-Core" would be $5,813 per single family unit and $2,790 per multi-family unit. Industrial and commercial fees would be increased an average of 50% (some higher or lower) in the "Non-Core" area with lower fees in the "Core Area." Having lower fees in the core area will encourage in-fill housing, redevelopment and job creation in the City. The other option included in the packet was a non-core Metro Area Option, which did not include a "Core Area" and provided for a fee of $5,233 per single family unit and $2,511 per multi-family unit. Staff did not recommend this option as infrastructure is mostly in place in the core area of the City and this higher fee would discourage in-fill housing, redevelopment and job creation as profit margins are lower in the more depressed areas. Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw gave an overview of a memorandum which responded to four points from the Building Industry Association listed in an article in the September 5th Bakersfield Californian, which indicated changes were needed in the proposed traffic impact program. "1. Pull all of the projects not on the Kern Council Governments (Kern COG) traffic model off the list.' There are very few projects on the Facilities List that are not on the Kern COG model. Two examples are Rudd Road, which is the West Beltway alignment and Alfred Harrell Highway from Roberts Lane and Manor to China Grade Loop. The West Beltway is not expected to be needed until beyond the year 2020, but money is included in the fee program to preserve the right-of-way. Similarly, only transportation study money is included for the Alfred Harrell Highway link as this connection is not anticipated to be needed until after 2020. The connection between 7th Standard and SR 99 is in the model; the model does not analyze the network down to the intersection level, but it is anticipated the interchange will need to be widened to operate properly in the year 2020. There are a few other links that are not on the early model runs that have been .included in the program for circulation purposes, for instance, Casa Loma is shown as ending at Mt. Vernon and picking up again at Fairfax--leaving a two-mile gap. Similarly, there is a three mile gap in WhiteLane/Muller Road. Without these roads, the only east west roads would be Brundage Lane, SR 178 and Panama Lane--a gap of four miles. To restrict the AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 3 Facilities List to only those projects that show up in a computer generated model would result in the elimination of roadways needed for circulation. "2. Reduce the cost of the impact fee to developers when other sources of funding become available.' There is a City ordinance in place that provides a remedy for the City to make an adjustment when other funding becomes available for any of the projects on the Facilities List. "3. Keep the ability to do independent traffic studies to determine the amount of the fee." The Transportation Impact Fee is based upon a metro-wide series of average factors for the various types of development--trip generation, peak hours of operation, and the number of projects within an effective radius of the project. Staff's experience with fee related traffic studies has been that they are only presented to the City when the developer is sure the fee determined by this study will be lower than that required. The projects that have a higher impact as determined by a traffic study never apply to have their fee raised to the appropriate level, thereby causing a shortfall in the total dollar amount raised by the fee. The Public Works Director explained not all traffic studies are eliminated. Any Commercial project over 100,000 sq. ft. and General Plan Amendments require traffic studies. City Manager Alan Tandy explained fewer studies have a side benefit of less work load and time consumption for developers and staff. Studies are costly and can lead to inconsistencies as traffic engineering firms may use different assumptions. Staff reviews attempt to make studies consistent, but it is an imperfect science. "4. Phase the increase in over the next three to five years." City and County staffs have established a nexus between new growth and the $406 million Facilities List. The fees are based upon the expected twenty year growth. If the fee is not collected for the first three to five years from new growth projects, the fees will not meet the 20-year need. There is also a CEQA issue if the fees are phased-in, as the program will never collect the needed funds and there will be a shortfall in the early years. Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle handed out a chart to the Committee that showed the unfunded transportation needs and compared traffic impact fees for new development, unfunded road maintenance needs and unfunded Alternate 15. He explained staff had a positive meeting with the Bakersfield Association of Realtors. At that meeting there were concerns about a perception in the community that the Transportation Impact Fees will pay for all traffic needs, so other funding or a Y2 cent sales tax is not needed. It was explained the Transportation Impact Fees only pay for new development's share of transportation needs and do not pay for huge Citywide transportation and read maintenance needs. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 4 Roger Mclntosh spoke regarding the Kern COG model not being complete (collectors not shown); another $60 million worth of projects that could be taken off the list not now shown on the model; individual studies should be allowed to adjust the fees if applicable; and the new fees should recognize traffic studies already completed for EIRs that show different traffic impacts or EIRs should be grandfathered-in even though the projects do not have vested maps. He spoke in favor of the core concept but expressed because of the growth in the northwest, there is a subsidy going to other areas of the town. Staff explained the new fees are effective 60 days after adoption of the resolution, but will not affect projects that have submitted a completed application before the effective date. There were questions if that meant a completed application or a vested tract map. The Committee requested staff to ensure the administrative report is clear in regard to what projects will be under the new fee. Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke, spoke regarding some developing areas of the City having part of the traffic infrastructure already in place. He was in favor of being able to do a traffic study for projects with Commercial over 100,000 sq. ft. or those requiring a General Plan Amendment to allow a lower impact fee for that project if that is the findings of the study. He also spoke about doing market research to identify growth to be able to take projects off the list that are not absolutely needed in order to lower the total cost of the facilities list. Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, spoke regarding new growth paying its fair share and the core plan being more equitable than the first proposed plan without a "core plan." Committee Member Benham made a motion that the Committee support staff's recommendation, but recommended further review of the project list with input from the development community before the Council meeting on September 10th and with the understanding the language of concern regarding the General Plan Amendment study option is clear. The Committee unanimously approved. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Chair Couch expressed appreciation to County and City staffs, Roger Mclntosh, Castle and Cooke, the BIA, developers and all those who have attended meetings and provided input into the Transportation Development Plan. He was hopeful there would be support for the plan, so when the City and County are asked to support the 1,~ cent sales tax, it can be said the development community is paying their fair share and transportation monies are being spent in the best way possible. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 5 Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and Traffic Engineer Stephen Walker Attendance-others: Craig M. Pope, County Roads; John Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition; Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Rob Ball, Kern COG; Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern; Steve DeBranch, Castle & Cooke; Bruce Freeman, Castle & Cooke; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh & Associates; Dennis Harris, Mountain View Bravo; Patricia Ebel, Kern County Roads Department; Warren Maxwell, Kern County Roads Department; and Mimi Mok, Mountain View Bravo cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Committees\p&d03sept08summary.doc