Ballot measure on Pulte’s Sun City project
This week The Weekend Pinnacle asked Pulte Homes Measure S
spokeswoman Annette Giacomazzi and Gordon Machado, chairman of
Concerned Citizens of Hollister No on Measure S to analyze an
impact report put together by the city of Hollister regarding
Pulte’ s Sun City Hollister project.
Ballot measure on Pulte’s Sun City project
This week The Weekend Pinnacle asked Pulte Homes Measure S spokeswoman Annette Giacomazzi and Gordon Machado, chairman of Concerned Citizens of Hollister No on Measure S to analyze an impact report put together by the city of Hollister regarding Pulte’ s Sun City Hollister project.
When a proposed initiative is circulated for the ballot, Section 9212 of the California Elections Code allows a city council to require a report regarding the potential impacts of the initiative. On June 19, 2006, the Hollister City Council requested an analysis of the initiative’ s potential impacts.
A 9212 report has a much more limited scope than an environmental impact report, which would normally be required for a project of this scale and size. Pulte-Del Webb proposes a development of more than 4,000 homes north of Hollister Airport, specifically for older residents.
The report for this initiative was put together by Barbara E. Kautz, of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP, Jeffery Baird, of Baird & Driscoll Community Planning, and Michael Waller, of Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
The report identified impacts ranging from 76 percent higher growth rates; significant but undefined traffic impacts; loss of prime farmland; leapfrog development; no identification of wastewater treatment facilities; and an annual operating deficit and potential capital deficit to the city.
The first section is the perspective of Giacomazzi, followed by Machado’ s.
Annette Giacomazzi:
[The report] reflects a predetermination of the wisdom of General Plan changes proposed in the initiative, rather than leaving that to the voters.
The Report selectively highlights certain General Plan policies, when the General Plan must be read and interpreted as a whole. For example, the report states that the intent of the current General Plan is to keep the Gimelli property as agriculture, free from urban development, and that annexation would not be permitted. Contrary to this statement, while the land use designation for the Gimelli property is agricultural, it has a Specific Plan overlay which calls for preparation of a specific plan to promote a mix of land uses. Preparation of the specific plan or an infrastructure capacity plan is required prior to annexation. Neither the land use designation nor any other element of the Initiative mandates approval of the project.
Leapfrog development
The initiative does not change the General Plan policy of promoting infill development; it would amend the General Plan to also encourage development that offers a unique opportunity, even where it is outside the sphere of influence. The existing General Plan recognizes that the City cannot force development to occur in certain places. The Initiative does not mandate that the Gimelli property be developed before other areas within the City limits and sphere of influence. Nor does it preclude other development in other locations from proceeding.
Loss of prime farmland
The initiative does not abandon city policies to preserve prime farmland. Rather, it proposes a change to acknowledge that there may be circumstances where retaining agricultural lands is possible but is not practicable when balanced against other social and economic factors (e.g. low value crop production, such as the current hay production, against a need for additional housing).
Airport
The Initiative would conform the dimensions and locations of the Inner and Outer Safety Zones and the Runway Protection Zone in the locations shown in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the San Benito County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
The Report states that the Initiative may allow development that is inconsistent with certain land use restrictions in the CLUP, but any project on the Gimelli property will be subject to the land use restrictions in the CLUP, and, as acknowledged in the report, will be required to go through a compatibility review by the ALUC. This review will consider the Airport’ s expansion plans. While certain “special functions” such as churches, schools and nursing homes are prohibited in the Inner and Outer Safety Zones and discouraged in the Traffic Pattern Zone, the CLUP does not have such restrictions for the single-family and multi-family housing that the Initiative would allow.
The Report states that the growth allowed by the Initiative has not been accounted for in the AMBAG population and housing projections. This assessment is based on an inaccurate assumption that AMBAG population projections are based on a City’s land use designations or specific development projects. They are not. Instead, AMBAG projections for individual cities are based upon a regional forecast based on demographic and economic factors. Thus, the adoption of the Initiative would not require revising AMBAG populations. Even if it did, it is not clear that this would present any problem. The current General Plan already calls for amending AMBAG projections to address the current General Plan’ s conflict with AMBAG projections. The same amendment process could be implemented if the Initiative is adopted.
The report’ s discussion of consistency with plans of regional agencies assumes that general plans or regional plans are not periodically updated. This does not reflect planning principles and documents. General plans are amended to reflect shifts in policies, changes in housing and other land uses, and other changes. These amendments must be accounted where necessary in the plans and planning documents of other agencies. This does not, however, preclude amendments being made to a general plan.
Annual deficits
The discussion of fiscal impacts to the City fails to recognize the funding mechanism proposed by Pulte for an assessment district, which could address the potential deficit discussed in the Report. In reviewing a specific plan for this site, the City will review the financing plan required under state law and will assess the fiscal impacts of the development on the City. There is no requirement that the City approve a specific project for the Gimelli property if it determines that there is an adverse fiscal impact that cannot be addressed in a satisfactory manner. Data relied upon in Pulte’ s economic reports came directly from the City.
Wastewater treatment
The Report states that other agencies have not planned for the increases in population that would result if the Initiative is passed and that planning for water, sewer and other infrastructure has relied upon growth projections in the current General Plan. Given that the General Plan was adopted less than one year ago, the impact on current planning efforts from the changes proposed in the Initiative would be limited. Since the General Plan requires preparation of an infrastructure plan for any project on the Gimelli site, coordination and planning with all relevant and affected agencies will be undertaken in connection with a specific plan for the property.
The Report anticipates that the Gimelli property will be occupied as early as 2008. However, adoption of the Initiative would, in fact, set the stage for what is likely to be a multi-year entitlement process to obtain all required local, state, and federal approvals needed to build the community envisioned by Pulte.
Traffic impacts
The initiative proposes changes to the Circulation Element to address the change in the Land Use Element to add the mixed-use residential community designation. These changes must be read in the context of the entire Circulation Element. Highway improvements have been studied and are continuing to be studied by Caltrans to address regional traffic impacts.
Specific improvements necessitated by a specific project at the Gimelli property cannot be formulated until the specific plan and infrastructure plan are prepared, which will be required. The land use designation itself proposes a mix of uses, which will reduce the need for off site traffic trips. Provision of senior housing and inclusion of recreational amenities such as a golf course will result in off-peak trips.
The General Plan calls for the continued collection of the traffic impact fees and requires other site related transportation improvements. The implementation measures also call for consideration of adoption of a public facilities fee to fund new circulation improvement projects.
The Initiative is consistent with the Housing Element. The Housing Element does not operate to limit the number of new housing units to be constructed in Hollister. The current General Plan recognizes that need for senior housing will continue to increase as more “baby boomers enter their senior years.”
The current General Plan says that the percentage of senior headed households in Hollister suggests that “Hollister is not adequately meeting the needs of its senior population.” Any development on the Gimelli property contemplated under the Initiative will comply with all applicable affordable housing requirements.
The Initiative is not internally inconsistent. It would allow for the potential development of a mixed-use residential community. The Initiative assumes a mixed-use community that will include residences for ages 55 and older and other uses. It does not mandate approval of a project nor does it mandate issuance of 650 building permits per year unless there is a project approved for development in the City.
As the Report recognizes, the Initiative provides for Council amendments to ensure consistency between the Initiative and the General Plan.
Gordon Machado
Higher Growth Rates
“The city of Hollister has just completed an upgrade of the General Plan at a cost of more than $500,000. Not only the dollars spent by city staff and a cross-section of our citizens, meeting after meeting, over a two-year period. The impact and effects of the Pulte/DelWebb project is not included in this detailed procedure, as it is after the fact. The City’ s General Plan is based on 244 homes per year.
Measure S (Pulte/DelWebb) would be allowed an additional 650 homes per year, for a total of 894 per year. A growth rate three times greater than planned for, and a unrealistic growth rate to maintain the recommended level of service for police, fire, water, streets, sewer, etc.
Measure S circumvents the city’ s growth ordinance (Measure U) and is unfair to the local developers who have been waiting since 2002, 244 permits per year, once the sewer moratorium is lifted. A plan for a sewer system that will cost the present citizens more than three times their current rate. Again, a project that is not even figured in the proposed sewer expansion.”
Traffic impacts
The increase of 4,400 homes would create up to 50,000 trips per day, the majority of which will be back and forth from the Pulte/DelWebb project to the core of the city, a four-mile stretch. This amount of traffic would obligate the city to widen and improve not only this portion of highway but also other major streets and intersections within the city proper, many of which are below the standard today.
Loss of farmland
One of the major Goals in the General Plan of the County of San Benito and City of Hollister is to preserve prime agriculture farmland, a natural resource. One-third of the Pulte/DelWebb project includes prime ag land, more than 500 acres. This project would also encroach additional residential and commercial development in their immediate surrounding area, the elimination of additional ag land.
Leapfrog Development
Urban sprawl or leapfrog development is the most costly method of growth. To extend, increase or provide service four miles from the core is most contradictive to good planning. Police and fire would have to drive four miles from the core to respond to an emergency and then return. The water and sewer lines would have to be extended and increased in size with very little use along the four miles. Growth should always be from the core out, in a good, concentric manner.
Annual deficits
It is sad that the California initiative law allows approval of a project of this magnitude to proceed without in-depth and detailed plans and commitments. Without the plans and commitment, you have very little to analyze and calculate the true impact to the city of Hollister and its citizens who will end up paying for any deficit it may cause. The preliminary analysis by three outside firms, indicate an annual deficit cost of $1.3 million to $2.7 million. When the full-fledged Environmental Impact Report is required, the true cost will come forward, including those forgotten, hidden or overlooked. These costs will increase the deficit to the city far above the $2.7 million annually.
