Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D ~ ~v0 ~~ David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, July 23 2003, 1:00 p.m. Council Chamber - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:13 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue'Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT MAY 5, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Mary Helen Barro spoke regarding PG&E trimming her sycamore trees under the power lines and cutting 40% of the canopy, which causes her trees to suffer from stress. Committee Member Benham requested staff to meet with the City's Urban Forester and the Tree Foundation to form a united approach and report back to the Urban Development Committee with a strategy. She also requested the City Attorney to provide jurisdictional information. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees Public Works Director Raul Rojas explained this process has taken a long time and thanked Marian Shaw of his staff and County staff who have worked very diligently.' This plan to pay for future transportation needs was a process of assessing where growth and development will occur and the infrastructure that will be required to uphold our living standards. Comparisons were done with the Kern COG Traffic Model to define the list of needed facilities. The Public Works Director provided an overview of the current fees. These fees are a one-time charge on new development to pay for the impact on traffic and the need AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 23,2003 Page 2 for new roadways, adding lanes, traffic signals, bridges, etc. The current fee after adjustment with the construction cost index for single-family homes is $2,466 per unit and multi-family is $1,651 per unit. The fees for non-residential, which include heavy industrial, light industrial and commercial are based on average daily trips generated per each business. In order to provide for the growth of new development in the City and have needed transportation facilities, staff has projected the revenue needed for the proposed Phase III Facilities List and associated costs to be $531,860,597. It was discussed in order for this plan to work, a Transportation Impact Fee Plan for Bakersfield and the Metropolitan area needs to be agreed upon and adopted by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Otherwise, leapfrogging of development will cause urban sprawl to occur if there are higher transportation impact fees in the City. However, it was noted some industrial/commercial development may locate in other outlying cities in Kern County, as some cities have very Iow and others do not have transportation fees because new development does not affect traffic flow in smaller cities, as it does in larger cities with heavy traffic. The Public Works Director provided charts showing different options for the Committee to review and the costs if the burden were all placed on residential development, or if the burden were all placed on industrial and commercial development, or some balance between residential, industrial and commercial. Charts showing comparisons of current and proposed transportation-related fees for Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton, Clovis, and Huntington Beach were reviewed. The Public Works Director recommended two options to the Committee for consideration: Alternative "A" with residential sharing more of the cost than industrial and commercial, or the Alternative of sharing the costs 50-50. Of the two, staff preferred Alternative "A" so as not to discourage industrial growth and job creation. Alternative "A" Transportation Impact Phase III Fees RESIDENTIAL PER LIVING UNIT PROJECTED INCOME Single Family Unit, Detached $ 7,089 $ 339,435,530 Multi-Family Unit 4,352 68,834,618 NON RESIDENTIAL PER AVERAGE DAILY TRIP Heavy Service Industrial 261 1,214,227 Light Industrial 114 11,546,142 Office Commercial Under 100,000 sq. ft. 99 6,567,994 100,000 - 199,999 117 200,000 sq. ft. and over 123 Retail Commercial Under 10,000 sq. ft. 105 10,000-49,999 sq. ft. 135 104,262,087 50,000-99,999 sq. ft. 180 100,000 sq. ft. & over Individual study TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS: $ 531,860,597 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT' URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Page 3 Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County, expressed appreciation to staff for getting this project to this stage so quickly because there is a need to get this adopted as expeditiously as possible for needed transportation infrastructure; new development should pay for itself. She also encouraged the Committee to keep the traffic service level of "C" as a goal to help with air pollution. John Cicerone, representing property owners in northeast Bakersfield, spoke regarding adding other roads and signals not on the list: Vineland from Panorama to Highway 178; Valley Lane from Paladino to Panorama; and south .of Highway 178, between Masterson and Comanche where there is nothing. . Peter Belluomini spoke on behalf of the Kern County Farm Bureau and commended staff and the Committee and encouraged moving forWard with the fee structure to get infrastructure in place before development occurs. Marvin Dean, Southeast Bakersfield Property Owners Association, spoke regarding Kern County being an affordable place to live and the proposed fee being higher than some of the cities on the comparison list. He had concerns that there are other fees to pay on a new house and total fees are currently $8,500. The Committee discussed incentives for infill projects in the downtown. Staff explained when the project is being reviewed if a study is done and the infrastructure is already in place, there would be no fee or a very small fee. The Committee requested staff to take a look at in-fill projects where a single house is being built and see if there is a way to mitigate the transportation impact fee without a study, as studies are too costly when building a single home. Terrie Stoller, Sunridge Nursery, spoke about the area between Vineland Road and Comanche and Breckenridge Road and Edison Highway that is still in agriculture. This area has high-dollar crops, trees and vines, and they would like to keep the area preserved for farming and separate from residential without building collectors through it. Lorraine Unger spoke in favor of the Transportation Impact Fees and liked the 50-50 proposal, but would like lower fees on industrial development and higher fees on commercial as it is overbuilt. Ron Sprague had concerns with the Transportation Impact Fees and putting a fee on new development and not spreading the fee across the board with existing housing, industrial and commercial, perhaps with a parcel tax. If there is a $7,000 fee on an entry-leve! home, the home may be outside the purchase power of the entry-level customer. Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle explained the proposed impact fee is to mitigate the effects from new traffic only. It is not to fix traffic problems prior to the time the City had an impact fee. Arthur Unger, Sierra Club, spoke in favor of traffic fees. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Page 4 John Cicerone in response to a question from the Committee explained Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County (BIA), and Roger Mclntosh were unable to attend today's meeting, and the BIA Board has not taken a formal position on the fees as yet. Committee Chair David Couch thanked City and County staffs for their long and diligent work. He expressed the 50-50 Alternative could have an undesired effect. If industrial and commercial fees are set too high, the City and Metropolitan area may not be able to compete with the smaller cities in Kern County. It would be more prudent to keep the fees for industrial/commercial uses Iow to provide employment. He stated he would support Alternative "A." Pat Ebel with Kern County Roads Department spoke regarding County staff working side by side with City staff to come up with the facilities list, a dollar amount and plan alternatives. County staff will not be making a recommendation prior to this going to Board of Supervisors for review. She suggested the adoption of the fees could occur at the Joint City Council/Board of Supervisors meeting on September 15th. The Committee discussed the requirements for a public hearing, how to move the fees forward to Council and provide the Board of Supervisors time and flexibility to suggest changes. A Public Hearing requires a Notice with the exact fees we will be expecting to levy. After adoption by both bodies, it will be 60 days before the fees will be effective and will not affect any project, building or vested map currently being reviewed. It is imperative to move this along as each month we delay, money for needed infrastructure is being lost. Committee Member Maggard expressed he wanted to share with the community that we are not raising more money than is needed. We are only trying to pay for the transportation needs of new development and new people moving to Bakersfield in order to keep the quality of life we have here. It will take 60 days after the impact fees are adopted before the fees go into effect. Developers that have vesting tentative maps already on the table are statutorily protected by State Law at the fee in effect at the time the application is complete. Marian Shaw explained new maps that vest after the date the fees go into effect are subject to increases or decreases in the cost of construction index. Sometimes it takes 10 years before a development is built, but the date an application is complete sets the fee in place at that time per State Law. The Committee requested staff to prepare a "white paper" on how the City Council could achieve the ability to have lower fees or an inCentive credit in special areas, for example in the downtown to encourage imfill and development. The Committee also requested Public Works staff to research the request from John Cicerone to add arterials to the fees list. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Page 5 Committee Chair Couch requested the Public Works Director to ensure administratively when a developer gets a credit back, it is credited at the fee level in place for the project when it was vested. Committee Chair Couch made a motion to forward a Committee Report on the Transportation Impact Fee Phase III program to the City Council on July 30th with the Committee's recommendation of Alternative "A" as the Committee's preferred fee levels for the Council's consideration; 2) approval to set a Public Hearing and establish the Council's preferred Alternative at the Council meeting of August 27th; and 3) approval to place the Transportation Impact Fee Phase III program on the City Council/Board of Supervisors Joint meeting on September 15th for adoption by both bodies. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding GEM Electric Vehicles Committee Chair Couch stated he had read the materials in the packet. The vehicle has a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour and has the ability to drive on roads with posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour. It may not be used on bicycle lanes per the California Vehicle Code. He requested staff to report back to the Committee on any' ideas how these vehicles might be utilized throughout the City. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding rescheduling the August 4, 2003 committee meeting The Committee agreed to cancel the August 4th meeting due to scheduling conflicts. The next scheduled meeting is SePtember 8th, Committee Member Benham requested the meeting on October 13th be rescheduled to October 6th, Staff will check the schedule and calendars and reschedule if there are no conflicts. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Member Maggard requested Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle, as there was no staff present from the Water Department, to check on the water pressure in the northeast area near Eissler Elementary and Chipman Junior High School and report back to him. He has received a second call about the water pressure deviating and varying significantly. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Council Committees\Urban Development 2003\ud03ju123summary.doc