HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/1996 ,~~B A K E R S F I E L D
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Ala , ger Randy Rowles
Staff: Gail E. Vfaiters Patricia M. Smith
/
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, July 17, 1996
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:25 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Randy Rowles
Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith
(Due to attendance at the League of California Cities Executive Forum)
2. APPROVAL OF MAY 22, 1996 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
Although the issue was not agendized for this meeting, the Committee asked that
staff follow up on the progress of the County's fire station location at Brimhall and
Stockdale and find out if the funding for the station has been delayed.
APPROV~ AS SU'l~r't~ AUGUS'r 14, 1996
FILE COPY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, July 17, 1996
Page -2-
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Steve Ruggenberg from Golden Empire Transit introduced a presentation by
consultants, Barton-Ashman Associates, on the Transportation Investment Strategy
which is currently being developed for metropolitan Bakersfield. The purpose of the
strategy is to develop consensus on the transportation needs in metro Bakersfield
and provide for an implementation plan to place Bakersfield in a competitive
position for Federal discretionary funding. The Committee expressed concern that
this was yet another study of conclusions which have already been agreed upon as
part of the 2010 Plan and previously adopted highway alignments. The Committee
felt that it is time to build the highways not study them. Mr Ruggenberg indicated
that a comprehensive planning process is critical if Bakersfield wishes to claim
Federal discretionary dollars for highway and transit expansion. He further
indicated that the City's input is very important in the planning process and asked
that he and the consultants be allowed to return to the Committee to provide
updates on the process and gain input. The Committee supported this idea and
concluded the discussion by naming several projects of high priority to the City.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
Staff provided an overview of proposed changes to the site plan review process.
Several weaknesses in the process were brought to light during the Marketplace
litigation and this proposal attempts to address them. Staff indicated that the
revised process could still be challenged; however, it is a significant improvement
on the current process without being overly rigid or inflexible. The proposed new
Traffic Impact Fee could resolve the majority of problems with our process.
However, since it is unlikely that the County will approve it, staff is proposing some
incremental changes to the site plan review process which removes language that
could be interpreted to be overly discretionary. The revision also inserts a provision
allowing the public to appeal a site plan review to the Planning Commission. The
Committee requested that staff take a look at project size as a threshold for
increasing levels of project review. This was an informational item, therefore no
action was taken.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 2:03 p.m.
DBT:jp