HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008 B A K E R S F I E L D
Staff: Rhonda Smiley Zack Scrivner, Chair
Rick Kirkwood Harold Hanson
Ken Weir
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
1:30 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
A G E N D A
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT THE JULY 3, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Update on.Traffic Impact Fees—Tandy/ Rojas/Shaw
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
S:\Council Committees\2008V08 Planning and DevelopmentWugust\08 August 19 agenda.doc
zoc-- ..... .. ,...,...,,r..
B A K E R S F I E L D
Zack Scrivner, Chair
Rhonda Srnl11eyAssisthM 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 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 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 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 economy remains in place? What if the prospective
bond issue that we proposed five years from now, isn't supported 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 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 System? 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 funding? 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 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
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Development Committee
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: August 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Update- Phase IV
City and County staff have continued work on refining the Facilities List and costs. Using these
numbers, and taking into consideration the comments received on the impact for both residential
and commercial projects,staff prepared a new Fee Schedule for Core and Non-Core. This list
was presented to a Stakeholders meeting held at the County Public Services Building First Floor
Conference Room on August 14. The most notable change from the last version is an "economic
recovery fee level" for the first year.
Attached are 3 exhibits:
1. The first is the handout to the August 14 meeting—a summary of the changes from the
last fee schedule, and the schedule itself for both Core and Non-Core.
2. Building Fee Comparison chart. This is prepared annually by the Building Department,
comparing all building fees across various municipalities showing Bakersfield's relative
position regarding the level of building fees.
3. A memo from Muni Financial to the City of Visalia comparing Transportation Impact
Fees across 10 jurisdictions.
Traffic Impact Fees
The City and County have been reworking the Traffic Impact Fee schedules after presenting a draft
fee schedule, a series of stakeholder meetings and subsequent comments, and initial consideration
and comments by the Planning and Development Committee.
There are, of course, inherent differences of opinion between public officials and the development
community regarding the level of the fees. Public officials have identified a need for revenue to deal
with road system demand caused by growth, while development businesses must account for the
costs involved in pricing of residential and commercial properties. Despite that difference in
perspective, efforts have been made to listen and adjust the fee schedules and, where feasible and
prudent, to make some adjustments in response to comments. The revised draft fee schedules for
the core and non-core areas are attached.
The most persuasive comment made during the review of the previous draft pertained to the state of
the economy and the need for a recovery period prior to implementing the ultimate fee schedule.
This position was taken by both residential and commercial developers. The argument on the
residential side, realistically, has less merit than it does on the commercial side because, under
State laws, vested maps carry the old fees that were in place on the vesting date until and unless
the map expires. The State legislature just added a mandatory year of life to all vested maps.
There are approximately 35,000 such lots in Bakersfield.
Commercial properties generally do not have the "vested lot" advantage. Many have been "in
process" for a long period of time with budgetary assumptions that could not predict the level of the
new fees. The "hardship" claim in these instances is real and could have meaningful consequences.
To adjust for these concerns, staff is recommending that the revised full fees be adopted but that, for
one year after adoption, an "economic recovery fee" level be put in place with a fee level at 90% of
the full amount. * Despite the vested map issue, it is proposed for both residential and commercial
schedules. It provides a full year with an incentive to stimulate the economy and bring projects to
the building permit issuance stage. It would also be possible for the City Council to add another
"recovery" year if, 12 months after adoption, the economy has yet to recover. The full fee schedules
will be implemented, and, absent additional Council action, will go into effect in one year.
Numbers
For single-family homes, the initial number presented was $14,490, for both the City and County.
The new full fee is now $13,703. The economic stimulus rate for the first year is $12,325. The fee
in the City is currently $9,553, with the interim amount added by City Council, and $12,958 in Kern
County.
Other Adjustments
There have been some other modifications to the schedules as a result of a number of issues.
These include refinements in overall costs and estimates for the impacts of vesting maps, and trip
generation assumptions on certain types of commercial properties. With these adjustments, and due
to the fact that residential development drives commercial development, there has been some net
benefit to the commercial schedules. Tables and comparisons are attached.
* In order to have an "Economic Recovery Fee", and to comply with nexus requirements, the revenues not collected
during the one year have to be recovered over the remaining life of the program.
0f 6 Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q
< < < < < Z
C C C C C C �
(VJl W W COJI CWO CD C,)N �a
W
0f 0f a' Zr <Ivll
n
! !
E Er 0- Q ! !
ffl ffl ffl fd9 .6q ffl fR ff? co 0
d) W 00 �l Cn 00 0o Cn O "
--400 00 0o 0 N N cn
ffl fig ff? ffl ffl{A ffl ffl ffl Efl ffl N y w,_
fA N co N-+ N � 1
V 0 �
N N O O 0o N UP (n co O N Oo 00 0o O cn .
fR fo Efl ffl TA <0 fo 1^ }� fA 69 fo to VA W ,
J 1 . i . i J fo
W 00 v V M CO N Co cn W N O A 00 W
0 0 OD 0o m 0 00 .p co 4 (p N N CO ao `'
x
Cn Or or Or Cr Or Or
11 x
O Q Q !. ! ! Q
(D Q Q Q Q Q Q
C C G C C C
C C C QC C QC Q E f
QQQ WW
0)C � O W OD OD
cr cr or cr cr cr a
aQ _a _Q _Qa � `
O < G < < < :5. ,
-" Q Q Q O. Q C Z
C C C C C C G
O G C C C C C " -69 (fl ffl 1fl ffl ffl t0
! Q Q
< L1 O O OD M W U1 � -
CD W (O (O W N O O M CAD
O
U O' cr 6 or CY D
(Q
O aaaaaa �
Q Q Q Q Q Q a
(/� Efl ff3 ffl EA ER fA {fl � Iv �.
.. .. -. ..
c c c c � = 1 J i 1 1 1 1
! ! Q ! Q ! (7) CO 41 (0 — O OD OD (C)
//�� io
4/ 1
ffl ffl ffl Eo9 ffl fA ffl fA ffl fig 16A N N N N N 1 03 s N GJ W W N OD v 1 CD v W (0 �l N
OD OD — N -+ N O (O �l 0) O O (n
��pp 1� f^ ��pp //�� 1^ ��pp r^ Ln 2A }p f.G^ /jam
4/ V7 P!� 4!4/V! V"1 tq V7 tq p/ Y W
N N N N N N " - 'W " — — N
O) O W O) 4 O (0 N W (O OD O J W
CO OD 01 01 01 N O CJi 00 (0 C)1 N 1
>f..
w
69 64 V,fA 69 69 V'/40 69 4' VJ Ef� V" VT co 4
.01 I� � GJ W N — co
-I V V V O CO W N (n � i OND ((n CA (WO (D
00 '
OD W W W V M V O j CO 00 C7 A p W 0
CO N N f0 C3 D C co CD M
cli
M O N O O O) (A O M h O st N (n CO M M N rol D NN N N N
N N N N N O N CA h
W NN N
�p N N
� c
¢ O
N
.0
C
E
co in W ° °m °0 3
_a (?n � N
m A N N N N OR
p p r w N N
d •c
(YO v
m N
N
N CD O °
(OD
C-) O O 1A O
W
UN N N N
E
d
Y
(n CA R Cl) W Cl) M Cl) (n (n (n
(n N CD Cl) a N (O(O (n co (l O N (h N M a0Op O CN x LO
W (n r N N N N N N (A N N M M in N ('6
Nw in us V) N N N N
CR
N n
Ln N N
0 N N Q N O O r CO (°n W O °h
O(3i O! N N N N (O h V 7N
N (0 rN N
t0 m
O e
N y
U. co YNj
aa (n CO O N O LO (n O ao
O CA M N (O O (D
Q N N N C
61 �N O WO
N N N
N N N Ci
U
Z
O
LO y N O M N N co O
Y nvN N rn m v (c (n
CL r N N N r (nN M N
N N N N
U
W
W
U. O QD CO ° M O (On 0 O O
N 0)V M C'f CC (n N CD O O O
Z �co a*(p O N N N w w w 69
N
M�
W
N
a O N O M to O(n (O O M N O N N
O M - N n
N M N V (n h
N N N W N N
O
W
ro co 1 V n ° p N O in N O O O
(l O CO O Q O N
N N co _
V) 04
N C�A
N N
U.
LL
LL W (N H N �N LL LL LL(N LL LL LL LL LL .0 LL LL LL LL LL LL ,(O LL LL (N LL .O(y C C LL LL LL a.
a"i N J •- a 41 ova a; p 4; m,aNi.- (� « _ vEi c J(D t E ',3 c .Zc a o U c (� $ c c y c t
tm � p Upc �o — cEp= (Dv«O � y me (°; c o o m e
L6 p 3 v m do � a�a0 (3a� H y R c m a cEmHi° (r�S� � d7
OUHOam Z hU 5E'c� m mw� ' yo r � (D ox — a � Oao p im S' p(L E¢ �LL °-' E o w v�cO > m c c m«oo U L° a mm EU¢ .`D ~ c m d apic oc � o (�iio010° oS > —y m oLL o y j (DEoa m o U' �° > c pap'p Q a d • m (9 g O pap c¢ a ° oy E 2 = o �D E o € a a a� d a�¢ ¢ c yUd W y U o `o d d pm aU)o LL O c co a a L ad � a o d y LL H d o E U c 0 � � a o 'o LL
a U U
c
'c
m
GJ k2 69 44 j§§
§
q B
\ S ml, $
t \ §
BE |!�
(N m 60 fio�_ �° \ }
k� § _ 2
k60 C11 04 Cli
to 41%
k
L
CD �
6
«
I
U
z
cl w
- 44
CL 4OW
M
0
Q
w
w
LL
cli (o co
2
vi
0
�
5
■
69 § 2 2 7
cl Go
Q} /
LL u- b 2ss # s �
° 2f� � UeLL
t # m 2E 2 = # � $ B
o% C \ / � �� CD
£ a I `
§.0 0 .
M Q6
kCO @ $2 \
! 2t co
FL
v) 2 m
. 7 a ~
k OD
|
MuniFinancial
Memorandum
To: Eric Frost,City of Visalia
From: Jeff Kay,Eric Nickell and Nick Arevalo
D VISED:April 29,2008
Re: Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
This memorandum summarizes the findings from a survey of transportation impact fees
among cities in the San Joaquin Valley. In many cities, fee amounts vary by zone.
Additionally, fees are often assessed in different manners, such as per land acre, per building
square foot,per daily trip generated or per PM peak-hour trip generated.As needed,we have
made assumptions to facilitate an apples-to-apples comparison. Please see the footnotes for
further detail.
In general, Table 1 indicates that Visalia's fees are near the regional high for most land use
categories. The table also shows that development fee burden distribution among residential
and nonresidential varies significantly by jurisdiction. For example, Porterville allocates fee
burdens heavily toward commercial uses, while in the Bakersfield core zone fees are
weighted more heavily toward residential. This type of variation is typical of traffic impact
fee programs and reflects the range of reasonable alternatives that are available to public
agencies within the confines of a sound and defensible fee program.
SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENTS FUNDED BY
DEVELOPMENT I M PACT FEES
Impact fee amounts do not always reveal the full cost to developers for transportation
improvements. In many jurisdictions, developers are required to pay impact fees for selected
improvements of regional significance and the inner travel lanes for arterial improvements.
In these cases, dedication of the outer lanes, along with curb, gutter, and sidewalk
construction for many road segments is typically required as a condition of development of
adjacent parcels. The true cost to developers, then,is considerably higher than the amount of
the impact fees.
Other cities, by contrast, include all major improvements in the fee program, leaving only
internal local streets to be constructed and dedicated by developers. To facilitate a useful
comparison of fee amounts between jurisdictions, the following list presents the best
available data regarding the scope of improvements funded by fees in the surveyed cities.
• Visalia: Full curb to curb improvements are funded for all streets and are subject
to reimbursement in the event of developer construction and dedication.
• Bakersfield: For most segments in the program, the fees fund only the inner
travel lane. All other improvements (including right-of-way dedication) are
required as a condition of development.
1700 Broadway, 6'Floor Tel. (510) 832-0899
Oakland, California 94612 www.muni.com Fax(510) 832-0898
REVISED.-April 29, 2008
Page 2of4
• Clavis: Full curb;to curb improvements are funded for all streets included in the
fee program. The program has separate fees for :the inner lanes, outer lanes,
sidewalks, and curb components.' All components, as well as right-of--way
dedication, are subject to reimbursement.
• Fresno: The fee program funds shoulder to shoulder improvements, excluding
curb, gutter, parking lanes, bike lanes, ac dikes, sidewalks, utilities, street lights,
sounds walls, and landscaping. The unfunded items are required as a condition of
development and are not subject to reimbursement.
• Hanford: Full curb to curb improvements are funded for all streets included in
the fee program. All improvements and dedications are subject to
reimbursement.
• Merced: The City requires all frontage improvements, the first 24' of paving,
and the first 37' of right-of-way as a developer dedication with no
reimbursement. Any improvement or right-of-way dedication inside of these
limits is eligible for reimbursement.
• Modesto: The City requires all frontage improvements and the first 40' of
paving and right-of-way as a developer dedication with no reimbursement. Any
improvement or right-of-way dedication inside of these limits is eligible for
reimbursement.
• Porterville: The fee program funds only the inner travel lane. All other
improvements are required as a condition of development and not eligible for
reimbursement.
• Stockton: Developers are required to dedicate right-of-way and construct
roadways for all abutting road segments up to 144' wide. This represents the
entirety of most roads in the City. The traffic fee is used for regional roads and
improvements to existing roads that would not otherwise be improved through
development requirements.
• Tulare: The fee program funds only the inner travel lane. City requires
substantial dedication for outer lanes and curb/sidewalk improvements. Only the
right-of-way and construction costs for the inner lane are eligible for
reimbursement.
Table 2 provides a summary of these differences across the surveyed cities.
REWSEAAprd 29,2008
Page of 4
Table 1:Trans lion Im pact F"COMF
grison
VlaaIla 8lslos
Land Use C Cora Non"Con Fns • Ma I • n• T 1 t0
8atftleO�iLf
f9M FamhV S 8,368 S 3,403 $ 6,828 S 6,475 $ 5,430 $ 2,284 $ 6,483 $ 10,231 S 955 $ 14,288 S 1,601
4,314 1,633 3,276 5,398 2,975 1,570 3,904 7,087 647 10,417 1,111
71nduW217 3 10,527 $ 910 $ 1,649 $ 8,849 $ 5,862 $ 9,727 S 12,499 S 18,731 $ 4,678 $ 7,948 S 3,013
5'194 884 1'788 5,728 3,334 1,998 10,418 10,274 2,459 8,198 2,109
1,623 302 610 7.433 1,087 1,302 2,751 3,984 897
2,591 1,182
In addkwn to ao vend tat a11ood"atom above.Vasa hn onoMe fan far osn*wm*m�,mobiw
awPPbq amps,ar was aOMa ahem,howw,ahunI mmd cW d4m'gowmmam,e61n Pares, btdualdd,maoomnwdYaa,raidarWal P.U.Q'a,dwaowd"U,heMwn Amu,11al food dtabw.
The tea vra anvartad w 1.000 seq.A.uaw6 the Ns%km Corp"Empwyntpd Owok ataraary Ropod eaeWakort Nat oa btuarW art warahorw. Indw"110 am pamndy ohargW Par empwyea.
2 Tw 9akars6ald 110'"ad an for 1M Con and Non.Cen Ana of do •nN•y w• ^t b N7 seq.ti
M 132,1163 and 6N,r*"Mbv y brtw wm ems and tab,6126 and St7744 for lim non am t 007.The M tar a Fee w,d bwa,and klduaWal dawwpmOM am vow nko av0mpa d111y Mpa at■par MP eat
PK 1.000110 fool Fn was dalerrnined bead a the Napa olp 6pmrwon fae11rs(17E)pw wrt use aMpodaa.
'The Ckwb$kW*ym/p raamwft fa edena11 based on a The of 132,377 par am for&OWS**nskwrtw pt 6N,642 per ape for madwae.It w eaumsd Nan an s elope Mdy harms
and 16 Auld f 0.21 formes Wears.Bead on Naas den11Raa,po multl4pNy danwpnpdwouw 1111 tlydarim t ra'ww emW tlaNpmaen.Nonmai#nM fen bow on 00,9"par gas and a Onr ana.
raeo(FAR)of 0.21 for opnmpaY,020 M ellwa,and 026 to InduaW.Cbvw was Ow"W"be amn VO fN Iwet w for SwAn Fa Am Ink ha aaan Na moa bwwpam h tlm wet 6v0 yarn.
'Tw Frenoabot0 famly n MInO to*ealbna11 bond on ale of 627,161 par am Aar slow wetly rasidaaa tad 6",621 par a•m for mu*4nnpy makann.An 6 ablpw 11tnly home and 16 rs
Umy htarN11 Per spa.Ccmw*rcW 11011 bawd an In of 603,626 W am and a FAR of 021.Me fee based as a In of 613.674 par ape and on FAR d 026.InduW W fee baaad an a M of 611 m par
seem and an FAR of 026.A111005 NO based a On Now OnrM Am lea gone(-W a N%of prolaogd IPeaM via be waalad)and vra be VA am a of Juy 1,200.FIm vd1 an bu actin on July 1,ION.
spook fee TWOAOCM for Ms N vend na nwppfa Fea•wtwt an for'7bo1a pally,•AWWWnf,^'limWWSMWM y ROW1."Memo OIOa."and NIGne t Indu11bwl."Amounts awvm do not kmkmM a 20%
awlgrntamwilAw 6o Central Paddro and Imperannt DINIM EttaWw JWy 16207.
rMWPD d bataaan Na liph ur over tlndart Low Tuner 11 ,and Imb fd et_W a and Tra16o 61pww.n bum@MW be band an tw'Rabt4>60.000 a.f.`fin,"whloh noomeMa maphfy tln
CommaroW fan band on Vve"Retak eawa11fwa tor amaiar aba �.IndYam 110110aad on ao 14W 0aw6ay.
(rtNr bo,000 as Rr oatpay.of6a ease a roeral aiee."Imltoawt based on"lnauada(MwAd a ptr a..
'E6.wee 711 NOT
' ISP IN"to(RTIa.11 emouma am,sawn 11•=-.V*rWm by go-is mwtlny ff*W VWM h*ft aeNfata 16"tar ON impmwrr OM WW Mft ppnw but do not bowda a rowel
MINNOW dm oombwad UM for loaleieeae ffoa wW •w an FAR of 02111r opmomW and 020 far aawa.leduabW fee band on a fa of 612.60 par eon and an FAR of 0.26.Fe Wnma
wnd5aPw0.reaoad pate aperNloa,art slat hVeemy pro)nw.
Sources:Na11won Company Enpwymwd DwWly&mrm y gaped MY of VMM,C y of aawaafWq Ck/of Cb*;Ck1r of Fmno•Cky of
FlaMwd,CRY Of Pp11maa and qy of TuWa 1barlFinerrewf
X X x m
E c
a c X X X °�-
d y a�
v �
49 x x xxx X m
cm
c x x x E 2 Q C
L m �,
0
o
x .�
0 Lo = m N O p m
E E E
cam,
m U LL d. u) !- x a
it ix g m
N 0 W
The following documents were
distributed during the Regular
Meeting of the Planning and
Development Committee Meeting
of August 7, 2008
CWBER
August 19, 2008
The Honorable Zack Scrivner
Chairman, Planning and Development Committee
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Update
On behalf of the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 1,500 businesses,
collectively providing over 50,000 jobs, I would like to express our desire for the City of Bakersfield's
Planning and Development Committee to approve a continuance nce for all items ms relatin to the
Traffic Impact g Regional
p ct Fee Update the City
of Bakersfield akers
y field and the County of Kern are jointly considering.
As you know, the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce has been a strong supporter of enhancing
and expanding our transportation infrastructure. We have led or co-led efforts to provide funding for
projects, advocate for the approval of projects, and have also participated on many issues as a stakeholder.
Though our enthusiasm for the TRIP program has not waned; we do have some questions and general
concerns about the fee program's update. Therefore, we respectfully request a continuance so we and our
industry partners can have time to review the documents associated with the update project, including the
nexus study. Also, the Chamber would like the City and County to present the final proposal to our
organization, specifically to our Government Review Council or GRC. This is the start of the Chamber's
process for taking an official position.
Though we are now in discussions with the staff to have such a presentation, up until now, the Chamber
has demurred from taking an official position out of respect for the importance of the TRIP program to
our region, and deference to your staff. We would now like the opportunity to consider the program
before it is heard by the full council. Thank you for your consideration and continued partnership, we
look forward to further discussions on this issue.
Sinc- ly,
Debra L. Moreno
President/CEO
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
cc:Members,Planning and Development Committee,Bakersfield City Council
Members,Kern County Board of Supervisors,Districts 1-5
Alan Tandy,City Manager,City of Bakersfield
Raul Rojas,Public Works Director,City of Bakersfield
Ron Errea,County Administrative Officer,County of Kern
Craig Pope,Director,Roads Department,County of Kern
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Your Partner in Business.
1725 Eye Street•P.O.Box 1947,Bakersfield,CA 93303•Tel 661.327-4421•Fax 661.327-8751•www.bakersfieldchamber.org
1
California State Municipalities Efforts to Increase Economy Stimulus
through Cooperative Efforts with Construction Industry
The HBA is very concerned that increases in impact fees will stifle any market recovery
Kern County may have. Raising fees will have a profound consequence on all entry level
housing. Kern County is one of the last counties in California where homeownership
opportunity is available (though it's quickly dissipating).
We urge you to consider the impacts of our concerns in the process of fee updates.
Strategies like flexibility in payment of fees at occupancy and financing mechanisms like
public/private partnerships also need consideration. Please take a moment to review the
following examples local governments are demonstrating through cooperative efforts
with industry:
Manteca Allows Payment Deferment
Oakland Tribune, February 25, 2008 by Paul Burgarino
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi gn4176/is 20080225/ai n24349293
On February 19, 2008, the Manteca City Council agreed to extend the life of a project
called Villa Ticino West by deferring sewer allocations through 2010 and let the
developer defer payment of 80 percent of the developer agreement fees.
Supervisors Lower Traffic Impact Fees
North County Times, January 31, 2008 by Gig Conaughton
http://www.iictimes.com/articles/2008/01/31/news/top stories/1 03 491 30 0$ txt
On February 13, 2008, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to slash traffic
impact fees by up to 40 percent for commercial development. Fees to build homes could
decrease by up to 28 percent, or increase by up to 3.5 percent in some parts of the county.
Housing Slow, So Brakes Put On City Fees
The Desert Sun, December 16, 2007 by K. Kaufmann
http://search.nivdesert.com/sp?skin=100&aff=1117&keywords-1lousin�,1%20Slow %20S
o%20Brakes%20Put%200n%20City%20Fees
With housing sales in the Coachella Valley down more than 40 percent, Palm Desert has
put a six-month hold on an increase in fees the city charges developers.
Builders Get Break On Traffic Impact Fees
http://www.�:,ilroydispatch.com/news/230449-builders get break on traffic impact 1'ees
On November 19, 2007 the Gilroy City Council Voted unanimously to only raise the
traffic impact fee by 2.8 percent, instead of raising the traffic impact fee by 13 and then 7
percent, as it did during the past two years.
New Home Fees Put on Hold; It Would Help Riverside County Pay for Freeway
Projects
The Press-Enterprise, December 12, 2007 by Phil Pitchford
http://w-vvw.pe.com/localnews/rivcountv/stories/PE News 1 oval B rctcl3 34889c1 html
On December 12, 2007 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors postponed traffic fee
increases to further review the manner based on the critical housing market. The
commission sent the idea to an ad hoc committee for further review, but not before
several commissioners said they would have concerns about approving such a fee even if
the housing market were stronger.
C:Documents and SettingslTonyalMy DocumentslCOK FeeslOptions-other municipalities.doc
2
Cities in Sacramento Area May Delay Fees for Developers to Aid Economy
Sacramento Bee, April 8, 2008 by By Loretta Kalb
http://www.s,icbee.com/1.01/story/844827.htiliI
Several Sacramento-area cities stung by the real estate downturn are considering
deferring developer fees as a way to stimulate the local economy. Deferrals on fees
charged to builders to help pay for major roads and sewers and address other impacts of
development aren't likely to reduce the cost of commercial construction. And they likely
won't affect home prices. But they are being tailored to encourage more residential and
business construction. Area civic leaders have a common desire, to reinvigorate local
economies and create jobs. "It's not just to see if we can get sticks and bricks up," Folsom
Vice Mayor Steve Miklos said Monday. "It's to get people back to work."
C:(Documents and Settings)TonyaWy DocumentslCOK FeesDptions-other municipalities.doc
HBR
of
Kern County
August 15, 2008
Mr. Alan Tandy
City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Tandy:
The HBA appreciates the scheduling of the August 14th Metropolitan TIF Stakeholder
meeting. Unfortunately, the timing of this meeting in regards to the August l 9th City
of Bakersfield's Planning & Development Committee does not leave representatives
ample time to review information that was handed out and is still forthcoming.
The following are just a few of the concerns we would like addressed:
• This trip generation formula has not taken into account truck traffic (ex: diesel
trucks passing through the county from one portion of the state to another). This
could potentially reduce the amount of congestion and growth rates indicated by
the trip model. This will require more time for the City and County to review and
calculate this new assumption.
• There are items on the facilities list that conflict with the need indicated in the
model. One example is that the facilities list reflects six lanes being needed while
the model show a need for only four lanes to reduce congestion. These additional
two lanes will incur a dramatic increase in cost. Another example is Mr. Nienke
stated there are items on the facilities list that simply need to be constructed but
there is no alternative funding solutions to get these projects accomplished other
than putting such costs on new development.
• The City Council and Board of Supervisors will have the authority to extend the
first phase-in fee amount another twelve months if the market does not make a
positive trend toward recovery, as they think it will. No threshold or minimum
number of units constructed has been decided to gauge the decision for the higher
fee to be set in place.
• Since the County stated they allow for fee deferral until Certificate of Occupancy,
we highly recommend that the City consider this as an alternative to payment at
time of permit. This will create a unilateral payment timeline for all builder and
PO Box 1848,Bakersfield,CA 93301
Phone(661)633-1316 Fax(661)633-1317
developer project calculations.
• City and County both understand traffic has dramatically declined with the price
of gas, but Mr. Nienke stated the data used is historical and would take much
longer to reconfigure using real time data. When would the next traffic study be
complete to indicate how much traffic has increased or decreased once this new
fee is set in place?
• While City and County are unilaterally using the Kern Council of Governments
(KCOG) model, the concern is that Mr. Nienke stated that this proposal is their
"best guess"at what the correct fee calculation should be. This is too important
of an issue for all involved to be based on a "best guess."
• The Nexus Study that is being prepared by Marian Shaw will be completed by the
City's Planning & Development Committee meeting, Tuesday, August 19th. This
does not allow sufficient time for review and comment to the City and County
from representatives.
Based on these concerns, we respectfully request that this issue be continued from the
August 19th Plarming & Development Committee to provide ample time to thoroughly
review the latest infonnation.
Thank you for your consideration, and if you have any questions or comments, please
feel free to contact me at the HBA office.
erely,
Darryl Tucker
President
Cc: Councibnember Zack Scrivner
Councilmember Harold Hanson
Councilmember Ken Weir
Mr. Raul Royas, City of Bakersfield
Ms. Marian Shaw, City of Bakersfield
Mr. Barry Nienke, County of Kern
PO Box 1848,Bakersfield,CA 93301
Phone(661)633-1316 Fax(661)633-1317
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday,August 19,2008
ATTENDANCE LIST
Name Organization Contact: Phone/E-mail
C�fc• C:�LIJ
s w
ZI�cC_ .S
Gig 0
HCH X 11 -
✓rJ�n w
3
ck r z GrAv j3ak0 CLo.-,�'er
I - r
Lc-
C—C,V1 vr�lun
K COUN1-f
Y All
6) 3S_qZ_
�C.C&rn
'-A/
diAl
G\Y- AT-) f 5� con Conn
Planning and Development Meeting Agenda
For August 19, 2008 — Media Notification
file rax w 1006 WRSMWA_IdFxf
�a � g dale
a ! a•
L}- Newyork(a. j "181111111 m c D—i To/Fmm/Fie
_.�py Fax2317 /Em... Pages/Bytet Statue Aceorrt Matter Un•
8/75/20083:49 PM Government AOa'xs D'u. 635-2377 1 pgs Q OK
-C 1 Commw * 8/15/2008 3:49 PM David Burger N
main �. got�Bakersfield 395-7579 1 pgs Q OK MN
8/15/2008 3:49 PM Bruce Freeman 6646030 1 pgs Q OK
t
8/15/20083:49 PM Ron Brummett 3248215 7 pgs Q OK MN
Plary9 s * 8/15/20083:49 PM Steve DeBranch 3234006 MN
--..�Trash t 6/15/20083:49 PM R pgs Q OK MN
* oger McIntosh 8340972 1 pgs Q OK
8/15/2008 3:49 PM A11" McIntosh Kim/Castle&Cooke 6646199 MN
* 8/1520083:49 PM Supervisor Barbara Patrick 8683677 1 pgs Q OK MN
1 Pgs Q OK MN
8/15/2008 3:49 PM Tom Carose9a 631 2693 1 pgs Q OK
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Mark Smith 8625444 1 pgs Q OK MN
* 8/1520083:49 PM Scott Blunck MN
* 664.6042 1 pg. Q OK MN
8/75/20083:49 PM Cathy Butler 3257319 1 pg. Q OK
*" 8115/2008 3:49 PM John Fallgather 3242323 1 pg. Q OK MN
* 8/1520083:49 PM Carl Moreland MN
* 8/15/2008 3:49 PM Fred Porter 1 pg. Q Phone line Problem MN
*. 3277065 1 pgs Q OK MN
8/15/2008 3:49 PM News Editor-Bakersfield 395-7519 1 pg. Q OK
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Charles G.Waide 3257814 1 p MN
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Editor-Bakersfield News 3249472 1pgs 0OK MN
* 8/15/20083:49 PM BIA 6331317 MN
* 8/15/2008 3:49 PM News Director-Kl= 283.2963 1 pg. Q OK MN
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Gear Channel Radio 2832963 Q OK MN
6/15/20083:49 PM News Director-Channel 3 3342685 1Pgs QOK MN
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Opinion-Bakersfield Cal 3957380 1 Pgs Q OK MN
* 8/15/20083:49 PM News Director-Univision 3342687 1 pgs Q OK MN
* B/15/2006 3:49 PM News Director-KBAK TV29 861 9810 1 pgs Q OK MN
*� 8/15/20083:49 PM News Director-KERN/K... 326-0388 legs QOK MN
* 8/15/2006 3:49 PM Editor-El P 1 Pgs Q OK MN
* opular 631 9451 1 pgs Q OK MN
8!152008 3:49 PM Beale Library 631 9439 1 pgs Q OK
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Editor-El Mexicalo 3236951 1 pgs Q OK MN
* 8/15/2008 3:49 PM Naws Director-KWAC Sp 7 MN
* 8/15/20083:49 PM Naws Director-KERO TV...3235538 Pgs QOK M
* 8/15/20083:49 PM News Director-KGET TV... 2831843 /Pits QOK MN
*' 8/15/2008 3:49 PM The Minority Consauotion 3239287 1 Pits Q OK MN
1 pgs Q OK MN
3 8/152008 3:49 PM News Director KU72/K...328-7537 1 pgs Q OK
,f
Ail fi/7W3.49 PM I(Atu Fddu-F.-nn,N Knn RRR:41M 1nny MN
J db nK M
39 faxes Nsted -