County Public Services Building

VISION 2020

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION

AUGUST 2, 2000

County Public Services Building

Golden State & M Street

1st Floor Conference Room

Attendance: Roger McIntosh, Ken Carter, Sheryl Barbich, Ron Brummett, Greg Bynum, Lois Chaney, Steve DeBranch, Brandi DelaGarza, John Fallgatter, Chris Frank, Greg Gallion, Dr. Dennis Guseman, Jack Hardisty, Barbara Harris, Ted James, Jack LaRochelle, Chuck Lackey, Chester Moland, Jack Pandol, Craig Pope, Jeanne Radsick, Herman Ruddell, Howard Silver, Brian Todd, & Jeff Williams,

Guests: Philip Ryall

Absent: Ray Bishop, Marvin Dean, Peter Smith, & Andrea Lahocki

ITEM 1: Call to Order: 7:03 – Roger McIntosh

ITEM 2: Define Infill Development, Urban Sprawl & Leap Frog Development:

INFILL DEVELOPMENT: Discussion regarding infill vs. blighted; need to provide further clarification define – may need to separate and become specific on strategies for: infill, re-development & re-vitalization. The core: (urban) includes re-development areas.

URBAN SPRAWL:

-Unplanned, uncontrolled spread into “urban periphery”

-Encroachment beyond “City” boundaries, or its “sphere of influence”

- Low density, land consumptive, centerless, auto-oriented development typically located on the outer suburban fringes. - National Trust of Historic Preservation

-See Webster’s Dictionary

-Establishing a community with an urban core vs. an urban community

LEAP FROG:

-Development beyond urban fringes non-contiguous, without proper infrastructure

ITEM 3: Review strategies for Goals 1 and 2

Discussion regarding Goal 1, specifically proposed strategies for infill development:

A. Need to further define infrastructure as it relates to incentives / disincentives for infill strategies. SUGGESTION: see original Summit document for definition

VISION 2020 - PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION

AUGUST 2, 2000

PAGE TWO

ITEM 3: Review strategies for Goals 1 and 2 (Cont’d)

Bullet points under PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO MEET IN-FILL GOAL were edited, one item moved to Goal #3, and one added. The changes were:

Bullet point #4 -1st sentence: change developers to owner. Add “or redevelopment” after “in fill” at end of sentence.

Bullet point #4 – 4th sentence: add “or renewal of existing structures” after in-fill. Add “ / owner” after developer at end of sentence.

Bullet point #6 - Moved to Goal #3.

Added as bullet point #10: Require non-contiguous development to provide all necessary infrastructure.

Bullet point #13 - 2nd sentence: Replace “stop” with “discourage.”

Bullet point #15 – 2nd sentence: change “commercial development” to “heavy industrial.”

Added as bullet point #16: “Provide consistent urban services within defined metropolitan area.”

Urban Boundaries discussed and references made to the Portland and Visalia plans. Examples of the California’s LESA model as it applies to CEQA were submitted by Pandol and forwarded by McIntosh with the agenda.

D. Vacant Land (lots) strategies: SUGGESTION: Speculative construction would have to be developed within a certain timeframe. (ex: Master planned communities of SW Bakersfield.) The objective should be to discourage vs. deny!

E. Create incentives!! For building and selling (developing) properties. QUESTION: Need to ensure that incentive benefits to accrue to the proper party (buyer, seller, developer). Need to be proactive in favor of private property rights. Some re-development strategies suggested: reduced or waived landfill fees for demolition, reduced or waived School fees, Sewer fees, etc. since infrastructure already in place.

Homeowner incentives need to consider City & County similarities and differences (services & fees). Could possibly resolve with Joint Powers Agreements. Need to identify County strengths / City strengths. SUGGESTION: Phase in elimination of County islands (with incentives) vs. full-blown annexation effort.

VISION 2020 - PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION

AUGUST 2, 2000

PAGE THREE

ITEM 4: Reach consensus for Goals 1 and 2

The suggested strategies listed in the minutes and discussed above were then numbered in descending order (not by priority), and Chairman McIntosh allowed each committee member to have six votes in order to prioritize the strategies listed and discussed.

The priorities, which evolved from that voting, are:

Bullet Point # 16 (19 Votes)

Bullet Point # 4 (18 Votes)

Bullet Point #10 (16 Votes)

Bullet Point # 11 (15 Votes)

Bullet Point # 1 (14 Votes)

Bullet Point # 3 (11 Votes)

(the actual tabulations for each of the 16 bullet points are as follows:

#1(14)#6(1)#11(15)

#2(0)#7(5)#12(1)

#3(11)#8(2)#13(3)

#4(18)#9(0)#14(5)

#5(2)#10(16)#15(6)

#16(19)

ITEM 5: Other Business:

Due to time constraints, no further discussion was held on agenda items 5 & 6. Similar discussion will ensue at the next meeting to develop the needed strategies for Goals 3 & 4.

The next meeting will be held at Bakersfield City Hall – City Council Chambers at 7:00a.m. on August 9, 2000.

ITEM 6: Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:57 a.m. on August 2, 2000.

NOTE: A disclaimer needs to be employed in publication of the minutes (website) that these are WORKING minutes of the P / T Committee and none of the decisions or recommendations have been approved or accepted by Vision 2020 Inc.