Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/03/2008 B A K E R S F I E L D QL-6tj- ` & Zack Scrivner, Chair Rhonda Smiley, Assis6M to the City Manager/ P.I.O. Harold Hanson For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Ken Weir AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Regular Meeting of the PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, July 3, 2008 — 1 :00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room — Suite 201 City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA The meeting was called to order at 1:11 :23 PM. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner, Chair Councilmembers Harold Hanson and Ken Weir Staff present: Alan Tandy, City Manager Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant Steve Teglia, Administrative Analyst III Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Brad Underwood, Asst. Public Works Director Bob Sherfy, Deputy City Attorney Stanley Grady, Development Services Director Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV Others present: Barry Nienke, Kern County Roads Darryl Tucker, Enus Construction Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group Jeff Leggio, Grubb & Ellis /ASU Sandy Bergam, Rick Engineering Donna Carpenter, Sikand Engineering Tonya Short, HBA of Kern County Duane Keathley, CB Richard Ellis Vincent Roche, CB Richard Ellis Nate Meeks, Premier Land Management Mike Trunipseed, KernTax Joe Ham, Cahan Properties Scott Underhill, Grubb & Ellis /ASU Steve Adams, Grubb & Ellis /ASU Larraine Unger, Sierra Club Himanshu Bhakta, BC Student James Burger, Bakersfield Californian Marvin Dean, Kern Minority Construction Cal Rossi, McMillin Land Development Nick Ortiz, Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Planning and Development Committee July 3, 2008 Page 2 2. ADOPT THE MAY 6, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update on Traffic Impact Fees — Tandy/ Rojas/Shaw Civil Engineer Marian Shaw provided a brief overview of the preliminary fee schedule and the five stakeholder meetings held so far. Ms. Shaw's overview also included a 7- page oversized print of the facilities list, which identifies over 800 projects, their location and their current cost estimate. The list itself totals just over $2 billion for both core and non-core areas. Staff is currently working on further refinements to the list and to the fee schedule. One element staff will be looking into is the expansion of the core area. Public Works Director Raul Rojas added that staff is still looking at the program, including comments received from the development community. Mr. Rojas characterized the draft fee schedule presented as a "high-end" version at this point. City Manager Alan Tandy stated he understands concerns expressed over the current economic state and the consideration of increased transportation development fees during the downturn of the economy. He asked that those concerned consider two issues that are often overlooked. First, there must be a functioning transportation system in the long term, and the City has devised a plan which allows that. Second, is the increased intervention in development cases based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If there are no plans in place for a functioning transportation system, then the CEQA challenges will have greater success. Mr. Tandy also responded to the following questions: 1. Is there any contribution other those from the development community to fund transportation needs? There is $630 million in monies generated by Congressman Bill Thomas and the Federal SAFETEA-LU Program. Over the next six months, the City will be in the process of putting in bids for $153 million in STIP funds they have been working on with the CTC and Kern COG for the past 14 to 16 years. A part of the funding prospectus for a future transportation development fee bond issuance is to incorporate gas tax monies, which will cover approximately 20% of the debt service. In addition, the City will continue submit applications to every conceivable state and federal grant program in order to secure additional funding. 2. What if the downturn in the econom remains in lace? What if the DroSDertiVe bond issue that we proposed five years from now, isn't suppoT rted by the amount of money we receive? First, the bond underwriting and bond insurance firms use a long-term look at trends for these fees, focusing most on the five years prior to the Planning and Development Committee July 3, 2008 Page 3 bond issue. In essence, we enter into that five year period in a down cycle, when our revenues are minimal. It is possible that if the economy recovers slowly, the City will have a shortfall. If that were the case, in order to be sure that we match all of the Thomas Roads monies and access the $630 million that he has provided, it would be recommended that City Council look at other revenues to pledge to the bond issue. It would be ill advised at this time to make an unequivocal promise and speculate that five years from now we are going to carve out general fund revenue and pledge it. Commercial developers made staff aware of the difficulties they will face with the fees that Mr. Rojas referred to as "high-end". Staff is researching several areas that have been raised. First, taking the worse case fees and looking at them in light of the vesting map assumption in place. If the vesting map assumption is reduced or eliminated, then there will be a tendency to lower fees in all categories. Second is to look at the core area. The core was established a few years ago and has not been amended. There is a pro and con side to amending the core area. Enlarging the core area would provide more infill lots, with a lower fee to build within the area. However, this would probably increase the fee in the exterior areas. Another issue raised by the commercial developers was that the traffic modeling assumptions for commercial offices were understated and retail commercial was overstated. Staff is looking into modifications in those areas. Finally, there are some identified components of the grid system that are beyond the growth range of this plan, and may not be dramatic in number or magnitude. Staff will be looking into all these areas to discuss at the next meeting. What was discussed here today is a status report. Marvin Dean of Kern Minority Construction, offered his support for a future sales tax or property tax increase, if such an effort includes language or provisions that require the contracts for any future highway development will be equally shared by all members of the community. Mr. Dean requests that the language include local participation and people who are not historically involved in the construction of those projects. 1. Mike Tunipseed of KernTax, provided to the Committee a report from the Kern County Employee's Retirement Association regarding Transportation Infrastructure Investment Opportunities for State Government Pension Plans. The report addresses pension funds investing in transportation projects. Mr. Tandy commented, in regards to the use of pension funds, those have to be paid back. Roads don't generate money. The only question would be, is the potential cost of interest less if you access monies through a municipal bond issue or another source? Joe Ham of Cahan Properties asked if Alan Tandy would explain where the CEQA challenges are coming from. Mr. Ham also asked if the increase in fees is based on timing of Federal monies and if so, could consideration be taken to give developers a longer lead-time warning before increases are implemented. Mr. Tandy stated that the increase in fees is driven in large part by the increase of highway construction costs. Current escalating oil prices have increased the cost for asphalt and oil base products. Planning and Development Committee July 3, 2008 Page 4 Committee members requested staff provide a comparable cost report of communities within the central valley, history of costs to determine if increases were recently implemented and a comparison of all fees within the fee package. Vincent Roche of CB Richard Ellis, asked if the City and County has taken into consideration the loss of revenue to retail land due to fee increases. Mr. Tandy responded that the nature of the fee is to pay for regional improvements, not local improvements. The nature of the use of transportation development fees would be to pick up pieces that were missed by the developer. The following questions were also raised during the discussion and were responded to by City Manager Alan Tandy: 2. Is the Thomas match money all that is on the Svstem� No, there is a great deal on the system that goes beyond the Thomas match money. What should be understood is that staff builds a model of the future grid system and projected traffic, and makes the traffic comply with level service C. If the Thomas Road Projects were taken out of the equation and that portion of the carrying capacity on the grid were eliminated in order to reduce the match need, then you would have to build a 12 or 14 lane arterial street. Because you no longer have a freeway system, you are loading all of the other remaining streets unreasonably in a way which would not be feasible to construct. 3. If we went to the level of service D would it have the impact of reducing some of the fee increase? Yes, it could be considered by the elected body. 4. Have we exhausted other ideas and other avenues for fundin ? We comprehensively attempt to. We have a lobbyist to identify any money available for street and highway projects. Staff is heavily involved in working with the CTC and Kern COG to receive our fair share of the monies which come to us regionally. Staff is also working with senators and congressmen on their renewal of the SAFETEA- LU legislation. We've looked at whether toll roads would work in Bakersfield and, essentially, they do not. Committee chair Zack Scrivner stated that increasing the core area is fair, in theory. However, the building industry, both home builders and commercial, are going to have to bear the burden if that cost is shifted. Committee chair Scrivner asked Tonya Short of Kern HBA to provide feedback from her industry on how people would feel about increasing the core area. In addition, staff was asked to provide more information to determine the pros and cons. Committee member Ken Weir added that there are projects in the non-core area that provide a tremendous benefit to the core area. He asked staff if the cost of those projects are included in the cost of the core area and how are those cost allocated. In response, City Manager Tandy explained that staff runs an internal list within the core of the improvements that are needed, which becomes a smaller version of the whole. If a freeway runs through the core and to an outlining area, that portion which is within the core is counted as benefiting the core. An example of this theory would be the Cottages project where the residents work and shop in the downtown area. Since their net commute time is probably under a mile, Planning and Development Committee July 3, 2008 Page 5 and they are not loading the grid, so there is less need for additional highway. Civil Engineer Marian Shaw explained that staff took a look at the regional projects, their affect on the core and non-core area, and distributed them out by the number of trips that originated in the core versus the number of trips. Portions of those numbers were used to get an idea of the effect the core has on regional projects and a dollar amount was obtained based on its current size. Because the regional projects are used by the entire City, the core trips generate approximately 15%. Committee member Weir expressed concerns regarding the allocation of all the cost to the core, and if the core is paying its fair share at this point. In response to Committee member Weir's question, Mr. Rojas stated that staff would look into that matter. As a follow-up to a previous discussion, Committee chair Scrivner asked if TRIP projects were on the regional list. In response, Mr. Rojas stated the TRIP projects are on the list. However, the core area has a different loading on the regional facilities, therefore the cost is less. In order to address Committee member Weir's question regarding the core paying their fair share, staff will go through the facility list to isolate the affect of the core trips on larger projects and provide more background on how the process is done. Committee member Weir asked staff for a timeline when this will be accomplished, and should the fees increase, when will this happen. Mr. Rojas stated it would take three to four weeks to get the final number to the Committee. After which time, it will be presented to Council and to the board, then will go into effect 60 days after adoption. This will not affect the consumer, unless they are developing and don't hold one of the 35,000 vested maps. If a vesting map lapses and gets renewed, they may be affected. Tonya Short stated that her organization is frustrated due to what they see as a lack of discussion regarding a backup plan. In response, City Manager Alan Tandy stated that preliminary concepts were discussed. Due to the current budget climate, staff cannot give a definitive revenue source or a timeline because at any time, the state legislature can capture local revenues. Mr. Tandy explained that if the $630 million of Thomas match funds were in jeopardy, staff will go to the City Council and discuss alternative financing options. This would include working with the bond underwriting firms to identify specific revenue streams within the general fund that could be carved out and pledged as security. Scott Underhill of Grubb & Ellis stated that raising fees would take the situation a step backwards. If looked at in terms of sales tax revenues, monies that would be generated under the old impact fee program would be lost. He also added that given the economic climate of retailers, this just may be enough to convince retailers to pass on Bakersfield. Mr. Rojas explained that staff has tried to identify what makes a system work at a level that is acceptable. Although hard to visualize, this system helps the development community by providing a clearer picture of developing in certain areas. City Manager Tandy concluded that staff is looking into the issues that have been raised and anticipate re-approaching the development community with a lower set of fees. However, there is going to be a fee increase in the numbers staff brings back to the Committee. Planning and Development Committee July 3, 2008 Page 6 B. Update on Maintenance Assessments for Special Storm Drain Facilities Required in Response to the Clean Water Act — Rojas/Shaw At the request of Committee chair Zack Scrivner, staff was asked to investigate the issue of applying a storm water maintenance fee for Clean Water Act required separators, through sewer user fees. Public Works Director Raul Rojas reported that staff is currently looking into making assessments part of the annual sewer user charge for both new and existing homes and will include the cost to retro-fit the existing sumps to these units. After consulting the City Attorney's Office, staff concluded that modification to the City Maintenance District ordinance will not be required. Staff will work with the City Attorney's Office and the Finance Department to include the maintenance charge in the future sewer user fees and will bring it back to the committee at a later date. Audience members asked if the City to be open to the use of pervious concrete and other cutting edge methodology for disposing of storm water, as opposed to setting aside land and sumps. Mr. Rojas added that the concept is good, however due to the amount of dust in Bakersfield and the maintenance associated with that, an underground system would be more probable. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:08:25 PM. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members