Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008 Xle ; 0 B A K E R S F I E L D w Zack Scrivner, Chair Rhonda Smiley, Assist to the City Manager/ P.I.O. Harold Hanson For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Ken Weir AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Special Meeting of the PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 19, 2008 — 1:30 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room — Suite 201 City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA The meeting was called to order at 1 :44:02 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 Bob Sherfy, Deputy City Attorney Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV Stanley Grady, Development Services Director Nelson Smith, Director of Finance Ed Murphy, Engineer II Others present: Barry Nienke, Kern County Roads Cathy Williams, McMillin Land Development Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group Corrine Coats, Bakersfield Assoc. of Realtors Jamie Nickel, Rio Bravo Donna Carpenter, Sikand Engineering Tonya Short, HBA of Kern County Scott Blunck, Castle & Cooke David Cates, Lennox Homes Warren Maxwell, Kern County Roads Scott Underhill, Grubb & Ellis /ASU Roger McIntosh, McIntosh & Associates James Geluso, Bakersfield Californian Lee Jamieson, Jaco Real Estate Ernest Rice, Colliers Tingey Nick Ortiz, Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce 2. ADOPT THE JULY 3, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY Adopted as submitted. Planning and Development Committee August 19, 2008 Page 2 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update on Traffic Impact Fees — Tandy/ Rojas/ Shaw City Manager Alan Tandy provided the following brief summary of staff's recommendations to the Committee: At the July 3, 2008 Committee meeting, staff was asked to refine the Facilities List and costs, taking into consideration the comments received from both residential and commercial developers regarding its impact on future projects. In response, staff revised the fee schedule and included a new fee schedule for Core and Non- Core areas. The list was presented at the stakeholders meeting held on August 14, 2008. To address the concerns of commercial development, who generally do not have the vested lot advantage, staff recommended a revision to the full fees and one year after adoption, an economic recovery fee level to be put in place. The fee level, which will provide a full year with an incentive to stimulate the economy and bring projects to the building permit issuance stage, will be set at 90% of the full amount. In addition, this change would allow the City Council to add another recovery year if, 12 months after adoption, the economy has yet to recover. In order to have an economic recovery fee and to comply with nexus requirements, the revenues not collected during the one year period have to be recovered over the remaining life of the program. Also at the July 3, 2008 meeting, staff was asked to 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. Administrative Analyst Steve Teglia provided an overview of the Building Fee Comparison Chart, which lists numerous fees that go into the total cost and a comparison of transportation impact fees for cities in the central valley. Public Works Director Raul Rojas stated that the development of the facilities list of projects was a collaborative effort by the City, County, Kern COG and Caltrans. City Manager Tandy concluded that staff recommends adoption by the Committee and advance the matter to the City Council for their consideration at the September 17, 2008 meeting. Tonya Short of Kern HBA requested a status of the nexus study that was promised by staff at the last meeting. Civil Engineer Marian Shaw responded that the draft was prepared and is in review. The document will be made available via email should anyone request it. Roger McIntosh of McIntosh & Associates, expressed concerns whether or not the model took into account the truck traffic along highways 58 and 99 that does not originate in Bakersfield. Mr. McIntosh added that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of improvements on highways 58 and 99 projected to be needed by the year 2035, are caused by this external traffic. Mr. Tandy replied that the model doesn't distinguish between trucks that are in and out of town. The model identifie traffic counts or trips. Lee Jamieson of JACO Real Estate commented that there is a large imbalance Planning and Development Committee August 19, 2008 Page 3 in fees between commercial shopping centers, who pay less, and stand alone commercial buildings that pay a higher fee. Mr. Rojas responded that Mr. Jamieson's assessment is correct. However, there is a discount for the large shopping centers because there are less trips generated due to the multiple businesses within the development. Dave Dmohowski of Premier Planning Group asked if there was any intent to redefine the vesting date the City uses to allow for vesting under the economic recovery year. Civil Engineer Marian Shaw explained that the date the map is deemed complete is the date that sets ordinance policies and standards. Committee chair Zack Scrivner asked that this be clarified at the next stakeholder meeting and followed up at the next Committee meeting. Ms. Shaw added that the effective date of the updated Regional Traffic Impact Fee Program will be 60 days after the last adoption by either the County or City. Nick Ortiz of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce provided a letter requesting the Committee approve a continuance of all items relating to the Regional Traffic Impact Fee Update that the City and County are jointly considering. This request was made so that the Chamber could setup a staff presentation on the issue. Jamie Nickel of Rio Bravo asked how the City's economic stimulus package compares to other municipalities and if the extent is equally great. City Manager Tandy replied that Bakersfield numbers are comparable with respect to traffic impact fees. However, it differs from other cities because of exterior growth and the demands for streets other than internal widening. In relation to these questions, Tonya Short presented to the Committee a copy of examples of what other municipalities are doing in regards to traffic impact fees. Committee member Ken Weir asked if staff could get an idea of what will happen to the non-core area if the core area fees are raised. Staff agreed to provide this information. Mr. Weir expressed concerns regarding the apparent inequity between residential and commercial fees. Staff explained that many communities operate on Service Level D, whereas Bakersfield maintains the Council goal of Service Level C. This higher service level increases costs. In addition, other communities are able to supplement the fees through the passing of a half cents sales tax. Mr. Tandy added that monies acquired through the passage of a half cent sales tax contribute to the costs associated with improvements. Also, the State looks favorably upon "self-help" communities, which translates into increased state funding. The City doesn't have those sources of revenue, so monies would have to be acquired by other means. Staff asked the Committee to keep in mind that the model does not take into account the unique aspect of Bakersfield, compared to other communities. Bakersfield is a regional commercial shopping center that services, not just the metro area, but surrounding cities. If Bakersfield priced itself out of the commercial market through the traffic impact fees, then it would be turning down and damaging its general fund revenue. The commercial market is the driving force behind Bakersfield's general fund. Jamie Nickel asked if the model takes into account the fuel prices and its impact on the amount of trips generated. Mr. Nickel also asked if consideration can be taken to promote the use of public transportation. Mr. Tandy replied that it takes years of trip generation analysis to put together the controlling background information which influences the model. In Planning and Development Committee August 19, 2008 Page 4 response to Mr. Nickel's second question, Mr. Tandy stated that carpooling and mass transit have not been effective in Bakersfield. It was the will of the Committee that this item be continued to the next Planning and Development Committee meeting to allow for staff to hold additional stakeholder meetings with interested parties. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:08:25 PM. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members