title
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE BEAR CREEK EAST SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, AND AMENDMENTS TO EIGHT MILE ROAD AND WEST LANE PRECISE ROAD PLANS, AT THE PROJECT SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF EIGHT MILE ROAD, EAST OF WEST LANE, NORTH OF BEAR CREEK AND WEST OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD (P13-225)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff brings forward a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the application for adoption of the Bear Creek East Specific Plan and the related General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, and amendments to the Eight Mile Road and West Lane Precise Road Plans, at the project site located south of Eight Mile Road, East of West Lane, North of Bear Creek and West of the Union Pacific Railroad.
body
DISCUSSION
Background
The Bear Creek East Specific Plan project site consists of ten parcels totaling 317.3 gross acres in an unincorporated area of San Joaquin County beyond the current City limits. The site is located within the Planning Area defined in the 2035 General Plan and within the Sphere of Influence (Attachment A - Project Location Map).
In 2005, applications were filed by MCD North Parcel, LLC and MCD South Parcel, LLC, primary owners of the site, for a Specific Plan entitled "Bear Creek East Specific Plan" (BCESP). The plan described a mixed-use community with a range of housing types and densities; commercial, industrial, and office uses; and community amenities, including parks and open recreational space. The application also included requested amendments to the 2035 General Plan Land Use and Circulation Map; amendments to the Eight Mile Road and West Lane Precise Road Plans; Prezoning; an Annexation request; and a requested Development Agreement. An Environmental Impact Report was submitted in support of the project.
Following discussions with staff and based on current complications related to annexation and other City obligations, the applicant elected to delay consideration of the request for Annexation and the Development Agreement. These items were not presented to the Planning Commission and are not before the City Council.
Table 1 below, identifies the project's proposed land uses by acreage and the resulting number of residential units and square footage of non-residential development. As described in the table, the plan would produce a maximum of 2,122 residential units and 230,800 square feet of non-residential land uses.
Table 1. Bear Creek East Specific Plan Land Uses
Residential Land Use |
Gross Acres |
Specific Plan Dwelling Unit Range |
Specific Plan Gross Density Range (du/ac) |
Net Acres |
Specific Plan Net Density Range (du/ac) |
|
|
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
|
|
Low Density Residential |
LDR |
72.7 |
357 |
469 |
4.9 |
6.5 |
50.9 |
7.0 |
9.2 |
Low-Medium Density Residential |
LMDR |
76.6 |
536 |
881 |
7.0 |
11.5 |
57.5 |
9.3 |
15.3 |
High-Medium Density Residential |
HMDR |
31.9 |
415 |
468 |
13.0 |
14.7 |
23.9 |
17.3 |
19.6 |
High Density Residential |
HDR |
13.1 |
249 |
304 |
19.0 |
23.2 |
10.5 |
23.8 |
29.0 |
Total Residential |
194.3 |
1,557 |
2,122 |
8.0 |
10.9 |
142.7 |
10.9 |
14.9 |
|
Non-Residential Land Use |
Gross Acres |
Non-Residential Estimate Sq. Ft. |
Specific Plan Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) |
Commercial |
C |
10.7 |
93,200 Sq. Ft. |
0.2 |
Office |
O |
4.8 |
41,800 Sq. Ft. |
0.2 |
Industrial |
IL |
8.9 |
95,800 Sq. Ft. |
0.25 |
Parks |
CP/NP |
25.1 |
|
- |
Open Space |
OS |
29.4 |
|
- |
Major Roads |
- |
34.1 |
|
- |
Elementary School |
IN |
10.1 |
|
- |
Total Non-Residential |
123.0 |
230,800 Sq. Ft. |
- |
|
Specific Plan Total |
317.3 Acres |
230,800 Sq. Ft. |
1,557-2,122 Res. Units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A map showing the overall layout of the BCESP is also attached for reference (Attachment B - Specific Plan Land Use and Circulation).
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission considered the proposed Specific Plan and related applications at its regular meeting of December 12, 2013 (Attachment C - December 12, 2013 Planning Commission Staff Report).
To establish the framework for considering the proposed BCESP Project and related applications, it is important to understand its relation to the General Plan. Perhaps the best way to understand a General Plan is to think of it as a constitution since it is the supreme document from which all local land use decisions must derive and with which all local land use decisions must comply.
In contrast, a Specific Plan is a planning tool governed both by California Government Code Section 65450, et. al. and the Stockton Development Code ("SDC") which is used to systematically implement the requirements of the General Plan in a specific area.
SDC Section 16.156.090.A states: A specific plan shall only be adopted if it is determined that the proposed specific plan would be:
1. Consistent with the general land uses, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City; and
2. In compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines.
SDC Section 16.156.090.B states, "A specific plan shall be disapproved if the Review Authority is unable to make all of the required findings of fact."
At the Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held and the Planning Commission considered the following evidence: a presentation from City staff, testimony from the applicant, an area property owner, a representative of Campaign for Common Ground, and the Community Development Director; written correspondence from Campaign for Common Ground and Sierra Club, an area property owner and the Union Pacific Railroad, opposing the project (Attachment D - Written Comments Received).
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and raised concerns in the following areas:
The significant number of approved and entitled residential projects
One of the focal points of the Planning Commission's discussion was the timing of the project in the context of the current market. The City's General Plan contains policies (i.e.LU-1.13 and DV-3.2) that call for the phasing of growth based on market forces and adequate infrastructure being available. Currently, there are approximately 16,000 approved, but yet to be constructed, residential units within City limits. There are also applications currently pending and/or in in-process which will add approximately 28,000 more residential units within Stockton City limits.
The condition of the existing core areas of the City
Concerns were also raised with regard to maintenance and infill within the City's existing core areas with the discussion focused on the need to address these concerns before allowing further outward growth. General Plan policies, particularly HE-1.5, DV-3.1, DV-3.2, DV-3.3, place a priority on constructing new homes on vacant lots in existing developed areas of the City where public improvements have already been installed.
The extent of unmitigated environmental impacts and the request for overriding consideration
The BCESP Project EIR identifies significant impacts that remain unmitigated related to the areas of agricultural resources, air quality, and cumulative impacts on aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, noise and transportation. CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15092 require findings be made that the significant impacts are unavoidable and that no feasible mitigations or alternatives to the Project are available. Further, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City must find that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. If this is found to be the case, the City can make a statement of overriding consideration, with substantial evidence in the record, to approve the Project. Following consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission was unable to find any considerations of the project that would support a statement of overriding consideration.
The potential impacts on Police and Fire services required to serve the Specific Plan area
Concerns were raised by the Planning Commission as to the potential effects the Project may have on the City's police and fire services. More specifically, Commissioners were concerned with the fact that the City is already challenged with high crime rates and achieving adequate staffing levels to police the current limits of the City, whereas, the added Project would place a further burden on the City resources. A fiscal impact analysis was performed by Economic & Planning Systems to estimate the demand the project would place on municipal services, given established service levels, the capacity of the City to provide services and the related increased costs to the City's General Fund that may be created. The fiscal impact analysis also estimates the municipal revenues that will be generated to the City's General Fund to offset increased service costs, the results of which showed that the revenue generated would not offset the increase in service demand.
In sum, there were several shortcomings between the cost and expenditures required to maintain services to the project area over time. It is important to note that the analysis contains significant caveats on the assumptions used in that it represents a snap shot in time, where tremendous uncertainties still remain for the City and the market economy with regard to the City's present service model and service costs remaining "to be determined." The cumulative effects of the already approved and entitled development projects in the outlying City areas, combined with this Specific Plan Project, were it to be approved, brings in to question the "life cycle" of service costs to the City as a whole, as these projects build out over a number of years.
Having considered the proposed Specific Plan and related amendments to the General Plan, the findings for approval, as well as all evidence presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend that the City Council deny the application for the reasons stated above.
Following the Planning Commission's decision, the applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk's office on December 20, 2014 (Attachment E - Appeal Letter).
VOTES REQUIRED
Five (5) votes of the City Council are necessary to overturn the recommendation of denial made by the Planning Commission.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
In accordance with Stockton Development Code section 16.156.060 (F), and as required by the Community Development Director, Economic & Planning Systems performed a financial analysis for the Specific Plan to address the fiscal implications of the Specific Plan development on City services and the financial feasibility of the project related to the burdens that would be associated with providing infrastructure for project development. This analysis compares the annual costs for providing public services against the annual revenues that would be generated by the development in order to determine net fiscal impact. The analysis concluded that at build-out, the project would marginally breakeven with regard to generation of General Fund and Measure W (quarter-cent sales tax to help fund police and fire operation) revenue and expenditure for City services.
Attachment A - Project Location Maps
Attachment B - Specific Plan Land Use and Circulation
Attachment C - December 12, 2013 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment D - Written Comments Received
Attachment E - Appeal Letter