Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2008 B A K E R S F I E L D Zack Scrivner, Chair Rhonda Smiley, Assi nt 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 Thursday, September 4, 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 1:05:02 PM. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner, Chair Councilmembers Harold Hanson and Ken Weir Staff present: Alan Tandy, City Manager Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant John W. Stinson, Asst. City Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Bob Sherfy, Deputy City Attorney Bruce Deeter, Engineer III Ryan Starburck, Engineer III Brad Underwood, Asst. Public Works Director Others present: Barry Nienke, Kern County Roads Bob Scales, Parsons Cathy Williams, McMillin Land Development Jim Scott, KGET Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group Corrine Coats, Bakersfield Assoc. of Realtors Donna Carpenter, Sikand Engineering Tonya Short, HBA of Kern County Scott Blunck, Castle & Cooke Cal Rossi, McMillian Land Development David Cates, Lennox Homes Warren Maxwell, Kern County Roads Roger McIntosh, McIntosh & Associates Chris Austin, DPFG James Geluso, Bakersfield Californian Nick Ortiz, Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce 2. ADOPT THE AUGUST 19, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY Adopted as submitted. Planning and Development Committee September 4, 2008 Page 2 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Update on Traffic Impact Fees —Tandy/ Rojas/Shaw After three additional meetings with stakeholders, Chamber of Commerce and Roger McIntosh of McIntosh and Associates, staff has made minor changes to the list, fee schedule and nexus report. Staff recommends moving the matter forward to the City Council with the development of the Phase IV Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Roger McIntosh raised several questions and concerns regarding the TIF Program. Those questions and concerns are outlined below. 1. There are problems with the nexus report. Several errors were found and no corrected version was provided. 2. What is the full scope of the construction costs versus additional costs that the fee calculation is based on? 3. What is the philosophical approach to new development funding the matching funds and logical termini? 4. How much growth in traffic is attributed to government jobs and how will it be paid? 5. Two of the grade separation projects are fully funded by the State, therefore the $50 million attributed to those projects should be taken off. According to the facilities list, the remainder of the grade separation projects totaling $200 million, require 100% development funding of six-lane facilities, although the model only requires two-lane or four-lane facilities. This does not meet the nexus requirements for new development. 6. There is one grade separation project that is duplicated. The project is shown as Kratzmeyer and Olive and also as Olive and UPRR. 7. The Rosedale and San Joaquin Valley Railroad Crossing Grade Separation Project is on the project list. According to the Department of Transportation, there are two trains a day at this location. Therefore, this location does not warrant a grade separation. Requesting that other railroad related grade separation projects be revisited by staff. 8. The South Beltway is not in the model, yet there is money for right-of-way acquisition in the amount of $20 million. The model does not show that the beltway is needed in 2035 and therefore, should be taken out. 9. TRIP match and logical termini should not be funded by new development. 10. Caltrans has identified a reduction in construction costs since 2006. Are the construction cost estimates used on the list accurate? Planning and Development Committee September 4, 2008 Page 3 In response to Mr. McIntosh's concerns, City Manager Alan Tandy, Public Works Director Raul Rojas, Bob Scales of Parsons and Barry Nienke of Kern County Roads, provided the following responses: Question 1 : Staff has identified the errors and corrections were made accordingly. A revised copy will be available to the development community upon request. Question 2: A list of construction project costs versus additional costs were provided to Mr. McIntosh Questions 3 and 9: The variation involves the Thomas money, the logical termini, the statutory match for the Thomas money and gradations of difference. The fee list provided by staff shows the total project costs and what portions are funded. What is being omitted from consideration by the development community is the $630 million in non-development fee related revenue that is plugged into the model as a result of the Thomas Road money. Without the match money gifted by Congressman Thomas, segments would be built into the model without being fully funded. It is important to note that the Thomas money cannot be obtained without building the logical termini. In addition to the $630 million from Thomas, $400 million is logical termini which includes the legal match. The additional cost, which is above the match requirement, is needed to complete the projects that cumulatively cost over a billion dollars. The model, which plugs in future traffic, must have a grid system which carries traffic to a Level Service C. The approach suggested by the development community to have a choice on how funds are allocated or removing projects from the list, would make the model dysfunctional and cause the grid system to fail. Question 4: The model reflects the 2.7% historical growth rate of the City of Bakersfield which accumulates all jobs and all growth. Ideally, new development pays for its impacts. If there is no new development, then there is no need for new government workers. The workers follow the increase in population which is caused by new development. If the new workers purchase a new home, they are paying their fair share of the cost. Question 5: The grade separation projects were approved by the CTC on August 28, 2008. The fee schedule went into effect and the schedule of projects was prepared in advance of that meeting. The State Grant provides for 50% funding for the construction cost of the two bridges excluding right of way, soft cost engineering and engineering during construction. The County must generate the match and the soft cost and seek other sources of funding to prevent the loss of their base grant. Most projects are a two-lane addition to either a two-lane facility or a four-lane facility. If a development causes one lane to be built on a facility, and there are no funds to build that portion, the development would have to build the whole facility in order to mitigate traffic. In addition, single lanes cannot be built as a bridge. Planning and Development Committee September 4, 2008 Page 4 We must build a whole bridge as a project. When new development requires a lane or two to be built, the whole bridge must be built. Challenges based on CEQA are at an unprecedented level in both frequency and number of interveners. Staff has worked over a year to update the traffic model to bring forward an update and a correction in the fee list for City Council and County Board consideration. If the development community intervenes to prevent the fee schedule from going forward, CEQA challenges will prevail. Question 6: Both projects are not duplicated and shall remain on the list. Question 7: This railroad crossing has very long traffic interruptions at peak commute hours. The City receives many complaints about it and it has appeared as a photo in the local paper several times. Question 8: Staff concurs that the need is not immediate. However, as development occurs the right-of-way needs to be dedicated to prevent development on those portions. The fee schedule allocates funds to purchase right-of-ways for future use. Question 10: With respect to construction cost estimates, the City is using current pricing provided by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, which is incorporative of recent trends in the industry. Committee chair Zack Scrivner requested that staff provide a breakdown of each project, earmarks, legal match, and the additional cost for logical termini. The TRIP Financial Plan will also be made available to him, with the understanding that it is currently being modified. Nick Ortiz of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce thanked staff for their support at GRC. Mr. Ortiz asked to what extent have freeway facilities been included in previous phases of TIF. Public Works Director Raul Rojas replied that little to no inclusion for facilities were made in previous years. There was always the assumption that funding would be provided by the State or federal government. Committee Chair Scrivner added that the City has run out of excess capacity because freeways were never built. To come up with a match for the Thomas money, the City is looking into a surcharge on PG&E bills or possibly bonding against half of the gas tax money. The developer fees are another part of the matching equation. Committee member Ken Weir made an inquiry at the last meeting regarding the core area doing its fair share. He asked if the core was raised or lowered, what effect would it have on the non-core area. Mr. Rojas responded that if the core area is raised, it would lower the non-core area. City Manager Alan Tandy added that Senate Bill 375 may be a long term means of forcing interior development in cities. It will give the State more control over local planning issues, with specific intent of forcing interior development. Committee member Harold Hanson made a motion to forward staff's recommendation to the full Council for adoption. The motion was second by the Committee members. Planning and Development Committee September 4, 2008 Page 5 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:28:30 PM. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members APPROVED 10/2/08