Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2009 B A K E R S F 1 Pi D Rho da Smiley, As istant to the City Manager Zack Scrivner, Chair For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Harold Hanson Ken Weir AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, June 4, 2009 — 1:00 p.m. City Hall North Conference Room A First Floor - City Hall North, 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA The meeting was called to order at 1:05:00 PM. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner, Chair Councilmember Ken Weir Councilmember Harold Hanson Staff present: Alan Tandy, City Manager John W. Stinson, Asst. City Manager Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Steve Teglia, Administrative Analyst Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney Robert Sherfy, Deputy City Attorney Joshua Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney Stan Grady, Development Services Director Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Nelson Smith, Finance Director Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV Brad Underwood, Asst. Public Works Director Others present: Scott Thayer, Castle & Cooke Bob Decker, HBA Doug Hunter, McMillin Homes Gretchen Wenner, Bakersfield Californian Roger McIntosh, McIntosh & Associates David Cates, Lenox Homes Matt Towery, Towery Homes Ron Bummett, KernCog Barry Nienke, Kern County Roads Bob Scales, Parsons 2. ADOPT THE FEBRUARY 12, 2009 AGENDA SUMMARY Adopted as submitted. Planning and Development Committee June 4, 2009 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Page 2 City Manger Alan Tandy announced that the bidding process for the West Side Parkway is underway and funding will be available to build from Mohawk to Allen Road. Committee chair Zack Scrivner asked how many interchanges and bridges will this project include. Public Works Director Raul Rojas responded that two interchanges and a third bridge will be built. Due to limited funding, a grade signal will be built at Allen Road. Committee chair Scrivner asked how many phases will be covered by this funding. Mr. Rojas responded that the current bidding is for Phases II, III and V. Phases IV and VI are not currently funded. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and action regarding Traffic Impact Fees - Tandy City Manager Alan Tandy provided a brief overview of the transportation plan that will meet the City's future needs. The various sources used to fund the transportation improvements include STIP and TRIP monies and any other federal grants the City can acquire. The City Council agreed to a pledge of gas tax to go towards bond to meet the local match requirements of the TRIP program and to meet the future growth and infrastructure needs that are identified in the long term transportation plan. Having adequate fees in place to meet the needs of the program is essential to keeping the TRIP money. Also, having a funded program that shows the local match shares is essential to meeting federal and state obligations. After a long period of work, last October the Committee and the City Council adopted a schedule of fees which were to be jointly adopted by Kern County. The County has further refined those fees and adjusted the program in response to public input, resulting in a new fee schedule. Since Council's adoption of the fee schedule, residential and commercial fees have been lowered. Public Works Director Raul Rojas reported that achieving a perfect program is not Possible, but this program is as close to perfect as staff could achieve at this moment in time. The overall facilities list changed from approximately $2 billion to $1.9 billion. The biggest change can be seen in the core area where fees have increased from previous years. One contributing factor to the increase is the asphalt index, which due to the increase in oil prices, has risen 25%. Committee chair Zack Scrivner asked if an example could be provided of what areas of the program are imperfect. Mr. Rojas responded that staff reviews current land use assumptions based on historical growth to make the traffic model work. Because these assumptions can change, review of the model every four to five years is recommended. Committee member Ken Weir asked if staff could provide a brief overview of why the fee has changed from what Council originally adopted. Mr. Rojas responded that one reason for the change in fee is the reduction of pass-through traffic on Hwy 99 and Hwy 58. The pass-through traffic is traffic that travels through the city that development is not responsible for. Staff also revised the cost estimates for the TRIP program. Portions of projects and some smaller projects were removed from the facilities list, which brought down the overall construction cost. Fees for the core area were revised after analysis by the County, City and the modeling group. The per-home cost for the core area increased from Planning and Development Committee June 4, 2009 Page 3 $5,300 to $7,700. However, based on the analysis, the commercial fees have decreased. Bob Decker of the Home Builders Association (HBA) commented that their industry would like to see the core area carry more of its relative share of regional transportation costs for the system. Roger McIntosh of McIntosh and Associates expressed concerns regarding cost of traffic signals and funded projects that remain on the facilities list and asked that staff take a look at these projects and provide a response. Mr. McIntosh also requested a formation of an oversight committee to review expenditures on a quarterly basis to ensure that facilities that are built get taken off the list. Barry Nienke of Kern County advised that in regards to the cost associated with traffic signals, the County supplies the controller cabinets, controller, signal poles and equipment. This increases the cost of the traffic signals. Mr. Tandy added that staff reviews the list annually and drops programs which have been completed and occasionally, add on projects were there was growth that was not anticipated. During the course of discussion, Mr. Decker raised the following questions to staff: I. While updating the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, is there some discussing as to the level of service that would be used in the new General Plan, whether that would be Level of Service C or B? 2. Has the City looked at how many cities or agencies within the State of California utilize Level of Service C versus Level of Service D in their general planning efforts? 3. What are this year's projected building permit numbers in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and how does that correlate with the scope of the fee program, versus the expectation of the constrained financial plan that identifies the revenue stream that will ultimately result in capturing state and federal funds. What happens with that deficiency between how many permits are pulled versus the expectation? 4. Are the transportation impact fees collected used solely for capital improvements on the facilities list? 5. What is the current building permit TIF fee and what is the proposed fee? 6. Why is it so important to raise this fee now, to debate this now, ahead of the General Plan update that will dictate growth of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area? 7. Is the possible future bonding capacity worth the devastating affects to the home building industry that are going to take place right now? Mr. Decker added that in terms of the full credit option of the Traffic Impact Fee Program and the oversight committee/working group, the Board of Supervisors did adopt those programs. Mr. Decker asked that staff consider their actions and take the same steps. Staff provided the following responses to some of Mr. Decker's questions: Planning and Development Committee June 4, 2009 Page 4 Question The fee program is setup for Level of Service C. In regards to the General Plan, there is no proposal to change the level of service from C. Question 2- The City of Bakersfield is one of the few cities that strive to maintain Level of Service C. This level of service is what the community requested. Level of Service D means less cost to the development community, but it may result in a slower traffic flow. Question 3: The fee for single family housing is $12,870, down from $13,600 that was approved in October 2008. The current Phase III fee is $7,066 per single family. Funding is contingent upon the City having a workable federal transportation plan through KernCog that gets approved through the federal government. Hundreds of millions of dollars can be lost if the City does not have a workable plan. The current plan includes all the TRIP projects and assumptions for future growth and is a workable plan. Ron Brummett of KernCog stated the TRIP money is the primary concern because the City is required to match those dollars. If the City is required to adopt a constrained plan, it must prepare a financial analysis to put into the planning process. As with the City, KernCog is developing the 2010 update to the Regional Transportation Plan which includes long range funding assumptions. Mr. Tandy added that parallel to the federal regulation, but physically separate, is an annual financial plan the City submits to Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration. It is a mandatory component for the City to continue to receive TRIP funds. The funds are held by the federal government and a percentage of direct cost is reimbursed to the City as long as it complies with all the eligibility requirements. Committee chair Scrivner stated that the attorney for the HBA submitted a public records request. Staff needs time to respond properly to some of the information requested. Mr. Scrivner requested a continuance of this item at a special meeting to be scheduled on June 16th. Mr. Scrivner asked that Mr. Decker and any other representative or stakeholder submit their questions to staff in writing. Recommendations to the full Council for the June 24t meeting will be made at the June 16th special meeting. Scott Thayer of Castle & Cooke asked staff the following questions; 1) Are most of the projects on the list within the City or the County?; 2) Why does this fee need to match the County?; and 3) Has there been any consideration for a phase-in while the City considers this fee? Mr. Tandy responded that the City and County has a jointly adopted general plan. There are extraordinary irregular boundaries between County and City. It is essential within that complexity of the mapping to have as much commonality as possible in the transportation program. Given the intermingling of projects and the fact that it is a regional plan, they really should be the same. With respect to the phase-in, the City initially adopted the program in October 2008 that contained an economic stimulus and recovery year in the program, which was essentially a phasing-in of the program. However, the County had it under consideration for almost the full economic stimulus year and it has yet to be enacted by the City Council. Planning and Development Committee June 4, 2009 Page 5 Committee member Ken Weir made a motion to continue this item until Tuesday, June 16t" at 1:00 P.M. The motion was approved by all members. Committee adjourned to closed session at 2:00:10 PM. 5. CLOSED SESSION The Committee reconvened from closed session at 2:20:06 PM A. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation. Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9. (One matter) - Gennaro City Attorney Ginny Gennaro announced no reportable action on the closed session item. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:24., :30 PM. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members