Loading...
PC Minutes 1993-08-12ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSIONS AUGUST 12, 1993 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission and Traffic Commission met in special session with Chairmen Carr and Franks presiding. Planning Commissioners present are Tappan, Soto, and Deviny, absent are Commissioners Reilly, Hatchett, and Keen. Traffic Commissioners present are McAustin, Pilkington, Borda, and LaPlante; absent are Commissioners Silva and one vacancy. Planning Director Doreen Liberto -Blanck is in attendance, as well as Karl Mohr of , Crawford, Multari & Starr. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PROPOSED CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES SCHEDULE Commissioner Borda left Chambers stating a conflict of interest. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck gave a brief overview of the information previously presented to the Commissioners. She pointed out that traffic studies are conducted on some projects as part of the environmental review process. A traffic mitigation fee is based on the increased number of peak hour trips. The new proposal would look at average daily traffic (ADT). She also noted some of the requirements of AB1600 and pointed out that Crawford, Multari, & Starr (CMS) prepared data to meet the State requirement. She then introduced Karl Mohr from CMS. At this time Commissioner Pilkington left Chambers, which caused the Traffic Commission to not have a quorum. The Traffic Commission could only conduct a study session. Mr. Mohr spoke on some of the legal requirements and implications of the impact fees and described the methodology that CMS used to derive the fees proposed in the packet. He stated three important criteria that must be met in accordance with AB1600. 1) The purpose of the fees must be explicitly stated; 2) The use of the fee must be identified; and 3) There must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the type of development on which the fee is being imposed. He said several court challenges have been made regarding what "reasonableness" really means. The basic guiding principle is that the fees cannot be randomly chosen without some backing documentation, and that new development cannot be asked to provide a higher level of service or a higher level of public facilities than what existing residents enjoy. Mr. Mohr stated that there was a minor error in the traffic impact fee calculation on their report of August 2, 1993, and the updated pages were distributed. Mr. Mohr explained the methodology used to calculate the proposed new fees. The Commissioners questioned Mr. Mohr about the proposed fees. Chairman Carr pointed out that using an average might not be equitable. Commissioner Soto pointed out that even with the new development fee contribution, the City has to spend a great deal of money to make the improvements. He requested that Staff to look into the possibility of Cal Trans assisting with the cost of some of the proposed improvements. Van Laurn, Public Works Director, approached the Commissioners, stating that the concerns of the Commissioners were his concerns; i.e. the equitableness of an average as opposed to a site specific fee, whether things could ever be built collecting only 30 %, whether inflation will outstrip anything we do collect. He questioned that if we have a list of projects to be built some day in the future and, if parties are contributing toward that list, could we legally pick and choose to do some of them and not all of them without returning a proportional share of the money. He felt if you are collecting money to contribute to these various projects, you are somehow bound to follow through and build each and every one of these projects. Mr. Mohr responded that he did not feel this was a legal problem, but did not want to give a legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Laurn then added that if the desire is to entice developers, perhaps having no traffic fee might be considered. He continued that, because of inflation, if you collect at a certain rate today, and then look at it in a few years, you will always lag because of that first group etc. He felt the way to approach it was to anticipate what the cost would be at some reasonable build - out date, inflate it to that point of construction, and collect today based on that rate. Arroyo Grande Planning and Traffic Commissions Page 2 August 12, 1993 Although this is not a public hearing, Planning Director Liberto - Blanck said that the Commissioners should encourage anyone in the audience to present their views, and Chairman Carr opened up the meeting for public comments. Tony Ranelletti, 522 Corrolitos, Arroyo Grande, stated he has lived in the community about 18 years and is a developer and builder. He said the Five Cities area is a very desirable area for commercial uses, but felt that the exiting traffic fee has discouraged businesses from coming into Arroyo Grande. Mr. Ranelletti pointed that the existing traffic mitigation fee is much higher in Arroyo Grande than in most other cities. He also stated that the cities and businesses need one another. He suggested that a program be adopted which allows a developer to get reimbursed for some of the roadway improvements. Dan Lloyd, EDA, 1320 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, stated he previously discussed with Mr. Mohr the new proposed traffic impact. He pointed out that a concept of waiving fees, rather than crediting should be included in the program. He felt the proposed ordinance should be modified to give the City Council latitude to credit impact fees against other necessary improvements. He then read from a document he had written regarding changes in the proposed ordinance, adding a (c) to Section 3 and modifications to Sections 4 and 5. Chairman Franks said he agreed with either the word credit or waive, depending on the legal technicalities. However, he felt that traffic at Barnett and Grand was going smoothly at this time and that any traffic light might have a partial consideration of credit /waive, but not the total amount. Chairman Carr stated he was still concerned about equity of the proposed fees and suggested a flat fee plus a per square footage fee for high traffic generators, or pay the per square fee plus whatever the business exceeds above the average. Commissioner McAustin stated he felt that Section 5 takes care of the equity situation, as a developer can approach the City Council, asking for a fee to be waived. Commissioner Soto suggested a simplified format providing necessary information (i.e., fiscal analysis) to the City Council so they can determine whether a fee should be waived. Commissioner McAustin stated he was concerned that someone would present information on increased jobs and sales tax, only to later reducing staff or not generating the sales tax. Gary Simning, 25051 Grissom Road, Laguna Hills, CA, ARCO, representative, felt that inequities would often be taken care of, pointing out that although ARCO might cause a more traffic than average, they generate much more sales tax revenue for the City. He stated the fees they have imposed on ARCO by the City are average in what they pay in Southern California where he does business. Van Laurn again spoke regarding Dan Lloyd's comments in that he felt it would be a misappropriation of public funds to take traffic mitigation fees and credit them against a site specific exaction. He felt it should be worded in such a way that the City Council would have the authority to look at any project and determine if there were or were not inequities, but that we should not credit one form of revenue with another form of project. He felt that the City Council should also have the final say on whether a particular improvement should or should not be imposed, i.e. traffic signal at Barnett. He stated he felt this should be looked at in the beginning and that it should be the Council's decision as to whether other City funds should be expended for a particular condition. He then commented on Section 5 and the problem of waiving fees. Commissioner LaPlante pointed out the possible danger of waiving as setting a precedent. During further discussion the use of the ITE Manual was considered. Using the SIC code to clarify land uses was also suggested. Planning Director Liberto - Blanck was asked to provide the Commissioners with some sample projects of how the proposed traffic impact fee would be in actuality. How low -cost housing projects were handled was discussed. Chairman Carr brought up the nine major issues listed in the memo from Staff. After a brief discussion, a second joint meeting in September was agreed upon. Planning Director Liberto- Blanck will contact the Chairmen to discuss potential dates. 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning and Traffic Commissions Page 3 August 12, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION /TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS AND COMMENTS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Soto, seconded by Commissioner Deviny, and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 P.M. to their next regular meeting on August 17, 1993. ATTEST: Nancy Brow Commission Clerk Robert W. Carr, Chairman