Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/1997 BAKERSFIELD GO~TTEE ~2~ ~,m, G~ Ma~a~r's Go~fem~oe ~oom 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:15 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and Patricia Smith 2. APPROVAL OF MAY 7, 1997 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. FREEWAY UPDATE Staff gave a brief overview of the status of freeway and state highway projects in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Freeway route adoption for the Kern River Freeway is in process and will undergo a public hearing at the California Transportation Commission in November or December of 1997. Caltrans is currently doing the Project Study Report which is necessary for putting the $200 million project on the STIP. Draft route APPROVED AUGUST 13, 1997 AS SUBI~IITTED URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Page -2- adoption will take place in March 1998, ROW acquisition to begin in 1999 with construction anticipated to begin in 2003. Caltrans would like the City and County to participate in constructing the river bridge and grade separation bridge for the freeway. The City may need to annex the Rosedale 5 area to make sure that the projects can be completed. For the Crosstown Freeway, Caltrans is considering putting money towards developing a route adoption. Staff is also working on getting ISTEA demonstration funds. A consultant has been hired to do an EIR for the South Beltway. The EIR should be completed in December which will lead to adoption of a specific plan line and ROW acquisition. B. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Staff gave an update on the progress for amending the City's Sphere of Influence. LAFCO convened a workshop on this issue in June at which the City addressed comments from agricultural interests, Enron and other interested parties. In order to address all concerns, the City chose to continue this action to December at which time staff will recirculate a new environmental document which will include resolution to issues raised by Enron and agricultural interests. Staff is also pursuing the inclusion of Rosedale Ranch as part of the Sphere of Influence amendment. LAFCO is being cooperative and staff is confident that the amendment will be successful, although it may not include the entire original survey area. C. NOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff gave a report on the progress in instituting park fees in the City area covered by the NOR Parks and Recreation District. The City Attorney will have a draft ordinance available at the next meeting which will apply the same park fee in NOR as is applied in the City. Funds collected in NOR district would be held in a City account and funds will be provided to NOR when they construct a park. The longer-term concern is to have a County park fee in order to balance the amenities in the City and metropolitan County area. The County is reviewing various mechanisms for funding park development and must resolve a few hurdles but could have a decision by the end of the year. The Committee requested that a breakdown of where the NOR fees would be collected from and how they would be allocated be provided at the next meeting along with the draft ordinance. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff summarized the basis for calculating the proposed increase in the City's Park Development Fee and addressed questions raised by the BIA on this subject. The fee URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Page -3- has not been increased in four years. The current calculation is based on a six-acre park with restrooms, parking and an optional extended maintenance period. The Committee was concerned that the basis for the fee was for a community park rather than for the less expensive neighborhood parks without restrooms, parking and other amenities, therefore elevating the fee higher than necessary. The City Manager cautioned that the Park Development Fund is not being over funded and in fact, collection of sufficient funds to build a park often come much later than both residents and the City Council would like. This was evidenced in the process of developing Tevis Park. Staff provided an accounting of Park Fee collections, expenditures and available uncommitted balance. Staff pointed out that in many cases there may be sufficient acquisition funds but insufficient development funds to build the park or visa versa. In addition, funds are often used to improve or enhance existing parks in areas that are fully built out. Each year the City is required to report on the collection of fees and what the City plans to do with the fees. If at the end of five years the fees remain uncommitted to a new park or to improving an existing park, the fees must be refunded. The Committee had several concerns about the cost elements that the fee calculation is being based on. Staff was directed to develop parameters for what should be included in a community park and what are the real costs for developing these types of parks. Funds should be collected to allow the flexibility to build the size and type of park that are appropriate to the area in which it's built. Concern was also expressed about the different fees being charged to different types of units such as multi-family, single-family, mobile homes, etc. Councilmember McDermott felt this was inequitable. Staff was directed to review the original findings which allowed the differentiation in fees for single-family versus multi-family. This information will be brought back to the Committee at the next meeting.. B. SCOPE OF GENERAL PLAN Staff provided information on the need for Bakersfield to conduct a periodic review of the General Plan. The City has been making adjustments to the land use plan and needs to determine whether these changes are consistent with the base document and whether the assumptions in the General Plan still address today's circumstances and environment. Staff is not suggesting a comprehensive update like the one undertaken in 1990, but rather a review to determine if any minor adjustments or revisions need to take place to keep the General Plan current and applicable to take us to 2010. The Committee asked if the planning horizon for the document could move forward as a result of this tune-up. Staff responded that this would require a comprehensive review URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Page -4- which would include looking at all of the policy statements and implementation programs. A schedule, cost estimate and summary of content of the update will be brought back to the Committee at a later date. In addition, the Committee suggested that the reference to 2010 might be removed from the title. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 2:00 p.m. DBT:jp