Draft Existing Conditions, Constraints and Opportunities Report

DRAFT METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

APRIL 2009

Submitted to:

County of Kern Planning Department 2700 'M' Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield CA 93301 (661) 862-8600

City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield CA 93301 (661) 326-3733

Submitted by:

PMC 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 361-8384 Fax: (916) 361-1574

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Issues Discussed...... 1.0-1

1.2 Document Organization...... 1.0-2

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT

2.1 Land Use Element ...... 2.1-1

2.1.1 Existing Conditions...... 2.1-1

2.1.2 Issues ...... 2.1-5

2.2 Circulation Element...... 2.2-1

2.2.1 Existing Conditions...... 2.2-1

2.2.2 Issues ...... 2.2-10

2.3 Conservation Element ...... 2.3-1

2.3.1 Existing Conditions...... 2.3-1

2.3.2 Issues ...... 2.3-7

2.4 Parks and Open Space Element ...... 2.4-1

2.4.1 Existing Conditions...... 2.4-1

2.4.2 issues ...... 2.4-3

2.5 Noise Element ...... 2.5-1

2.5.1 Existing Conditions...... 2.5-1

2.5.2 Issues ...... 2.5-3

2.6 Safety Element ...... 2.6-1

2.6.1 Existing Conditions...... 2.6-1

2.6.2 Issues ...... 2.9-10

2.7 Public Services and Facilities Element...... 2.7-1

I APRIL 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.7.1 Existing Conditions ...... 2.7-1

2.7.2 Issues ...... 2.7-12

3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD ...... 3.0-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.4.2-1 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield Existing Park Standards Comparison ...... 2.4-4 Table 2.4.1-1 Existing Parks in Metropolitan Bakersfield...... 2.4-9 Table 2.7.1-1 Water Sources for Urban Water Purveyors in Metropolitan Bakersfield.... 2.7-7 Table 3.1-1 City of Bakersfield and Kern County Developer Impact Fees...... 3.0-7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1.1-1 Centers and Resources ...... 2.1-3 Figure 2.1.2-1a Examples of Mixed-Use Development...... 2.1-13 Figure 2.1.2-1b Examples of Transit-Oriented Development...... 2.1-13 Figure 2.1.2-2 Specific Plans for Rescission...... 2.1-24 Figure 2.1.2-3 Existing and Proposed Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area ...... 2.1-29 Figure 2.1.2-4 Urban - Opportunities and Reserve Map...... 2.1-34 Figure 2.2.1-1 State Routes ...... 2.2-3 Figure 2.2.1-2 Golden Empire Transit (GET) Bus Routes ...... 2.2-5 Figure 2.2.1-3 Kern Regional Transit Routes...... 2.2-5 Figure 2.2.1-4 Amtrak Routes ...... 2.2-6 Figure 2.2.1-5 Existing and Proposed Bikeways...... 2.2-7 Figure 2.2.1-6 Airports...... 2.2-10 Figure 2.2.2-1 Physical Constraints to the Circulation System ...... 2.2-12 Figure 2.2.2-2 Canals...... 2.2-12 Figure 2.2.2-3 Proposed High Speed Rail Line...... 2.2-25 Figure 2.3.1-1 Known Mineral Resources...... 2.3-3 Figure 2.3.1-2 Prime Agricultural Lands...... 2.3-5 Figure 2.3.1-3 Williamson Act Properties...... 2.3-5 Figure 2.3.2-1 Kern River and Foothills ...... 2.3-10 Figure 2.4.1-1 Existing Parks ...... 2.4-2 Figure 2.5.1-1 Major Noise Sources ...... 2.5-3

APRIL 2009 II TABLE OF CONTENTS

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Figure 2.6.1-1 Major Active Faults...... 2.6-2 Figure 2.6.1-2 Isabella Dam Inundation Areas ...... 2.6-5 Figure 2.6.1-3 Areas of Potential Flooding ...... 2.6-7 Figure 2.6.1-4 Police/Sherriff and Fire Stations for the City of Bakersfield and Kern County...2.6-9 Figure 2.7.1-1 Water Storage Entities...... 2.7-3 Figure 2.7.1-2 Water Supplier and Purveyor Service Areas...... 2.7-5 Figure 2.7.1-3 Wastewater Treatment Plants ...... 2.7-9 Figure 2.7.1-4 Waste Facilities ...... 2.7-11

III APRIL 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

It is the intent of this Existing Conditions, Constraints and Opportunities Report for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update to highlight issues, challenges, and recommended changes to the existing General Plan that will be considered during the update. Some of these issues pose challenges that may limit options for the accommodation of future growth and development in Metropolitan Bakersfield. However, in some cases, these challenges represent an opportunity to capitalize on existing or future conditions or trends.

The recommended changes contained in this Report will be used to guide the creation of new or updated goals, policies, and implementing actions in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update.

1.1 ISSUES DISCUSSED The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update process began in May 2007 with a series of Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings and surveys to involve members of the community who live, work, and play in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Their input was important to help identify issues that need to be considered in the General Plan Update, and to identify potential solutions to issues facing the area. The results of the workshops and surveys were summarized in the Final Public Outreach Issues Report. Copies of this Report are available for viewing at:

City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 www.bakersfieldcity.us

Kern County Planning Department 2700 ‘M’ Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 www.co.kern.ca.us

Many of the issues discussed in this Existing Conditions, Constraints and Opportunities Report were derived from the results of the workshops, as documented in the Final Public Outreach Issues Report. The issues discussed in this Report were also derived from discussions with the City of Bakersfield and Kern County staff and input from other agencies or entities that provide services within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update area.

In addition to the issues identified in this Report, a series of capacity analysis memorandums were produced to summarize capacity issues associated with buildout of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan regarding the roadway system, water supply, and sewer treatment facilities. The purpose of these memorandums is to provide decision makers with information about how the land uses identified under the 2002 Metropolitan

1.0-1 APRIL 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Bakersfield General Plan will influence infrastructure capacities in the future, and how the City and County may wish to address these issues by making policy changes during the General Plan Update process. These capacity analysis memorandums will be published separately.

1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This Existing Conditions, Constraints and Opportunities Report contains the following three chapters.

Chapter 1.0 Introduction provides an overview of the intent and organization of the Existing Conditions, Constraints and Opportunities Report.

Chapter 2.0 is broken down into the following eight sections, which correspond to the various General Plan elements:

2.1 Land Use Element

2.2 Circulation Element

2.3 Conservation Element

2.4 Parks and Open Space Element

2.5 Noise Element

2.6 Safety Element

2.7 Public Services and Facilities Element

Each section (2.1 through 2.7) is organized as follows:

Existing Conditions The Existing Conditions discussion provides a summary of the existing policies and principles for each element as identified by the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Issues The Issues discussion identifies focused issues associated with the element to be discussed in further detail. An evaluation of each issue relative to the existing General Plan policies has been conducted and specific challenges are identified. Discussion of the issues identified is broken down as follows:

How does the General Plan currently address the issue?

This sub-section summarizes the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies affecting the issue. The list of policies contained in these discussions are not an exhaustive list of all policies, rather they are representative of the policies

APRIL 2009 1.0-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

contained in the 2002 General Plan as they relate to the specific issue that the update will impact.

Note: The General Plan Update process will include a comprehensive review of all existing 2002 General Plan policies regardless of their inclusion for discussion purposes in this Report. To view a complete list of all existing 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies and associated implementation measures, see the 2002 General Plan.

Challenges This sub-section identifies the primary challenges in successfully implementing the basic principles of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The challenges identified focus on the how the existing General Plan policies are inhibiting factors.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan This sub-section identifies recommended actions and policy direction that should be considered during the General Plan Update process to address the challenges identified. The recommended changes identified are focused on changes to the existing 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies.

Chapter 3.0 Other Influences on Metropolitan Bakersfield identifies and discusses those issues that are not addressed by individual elements of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan but will still have an effect on land use and planning in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

Chapter 3.0 is organized as follows:

Existing Conditions The Existing Conditions discussion provides a summary of the issue and how it relates to the General Plan Update process.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan This sub-section identifies recommended actions and policy direction that should be considered during the General Plan Update process to consider the issues described in the Existing Conditions discussion.

1.0-3 APRIL 2009

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT

2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

The Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of land uses in the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area and includes land use goals, policies (including the Land Use Map) and implementation programs.

The Land Use Element is crucial to the success of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan: A well thought-out plan which provides clear and concise guidelines to ensure the quality of future growth and community design supports all other Elements of the General Plan.

2.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides goals and policies to direct growth in three distinct categories in the planning area:

Existing urban areas,

New urban areas, and

Development in peripheral areas.

Following is a summary of the basic principles guiding development in each of these three categories, as identified in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Category 1: Existing Urban Areas The 2002 General Plan identifies the following guiding principles for development in existing urban areas:

Preservation and conservation of existing residential neighborhoods whose identity is characterized by the quality and maintenance of existing construction, stability, and reputation as a "special" place in the community;

Infill of vacant parcels at prevailing densities;

Recycling and intensification of areas which are physically or economically depressed; and,

Open space linkages where feasible to the Kern River and foothill areas.

Strip commercial and sprawling residential land use patterns, which lack consolidation or focus, are generally inconsistent with these principles and are discouraged.

In addition, the 2002 General Plan provides for the preservation of stable, primarily single- family neighborhoods by allowing for a reduction in the densities from those permitted by the previous general plan.

2.1-1 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Category 2: New Urban Areas The 2002 General Plan contains two basic principles that govern development of new urban areas:

The “Centers” concept, which seeks to build livable areas that combine housing and jobs; and

The “Resources” concept, which seeks to direct development away from sensitive areas containing wildlife habitat, visual resources, etc.

These are illustrated in Figure 2.1.1-1 Centers and Resources, on the following page. The following are brief descriptions of the concepts.

“Centers” Concept

The "Centers" concept focuses new development into distinctive centers which are separated by low land use densities. The centers concept provides for a land use pattern consisting of several concentrated mixed-use commercial and high density residential centers surrounded by medium density residential uses.

The intent of the Centers concept is to focus new development into distinctive centers which are separated by low land use densities. The Centers concept provides for a land use pattern consisting of several concentrated mixed-use commercial and high density residential centers surrounded by medium density residential uses.

In addition to promoting the formation of several large concentrated mixed-use centers, the centers concept and 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use plan also attempt to consolidate smaller, neighborhood-serving commercial development by prescribing minimum distances between commercial parcels and by discouraging strip commercial development.

Centers may be differentiated by functional activity (the types of land uses that take place in them), density/intensity, and physical character. Primarily single-family residential uses are located between these mixed-use commercial/residential centers.

The centers concept encourages people to live and work in the same area, encourages walkability and thus, can serve to minimize sprawl and reduce traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, and air pollution.

“Resources” Concept

The "Resources" concept emphasizes the siting of development to reflect the planning area's natural and visual resource such as the Kern River, canals, and the foothills.

APRIL 2009 2.1-2 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.1.1-1 CENTERS AND RESOURCES

2.1-3 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

The Resources concept uses the Kern River Plan Element as a point of departure, taking advantage of the recreational potential of the river while respecting the river's sensitive natural habitats and aesthetic resources.

The Resources concept also encourages linkages to these unique resources. Policies are included in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to promote utilization and sensitivity of natural and visual resources.

Category 3: Peripheral Areas The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan calls for new development on the periphery of the urban area to be focused in ten (10) new primary and secondary mixed-use activity centers located in the southwest, northwest and northeast portions of the planning area.

Primary Centers There are four primary centers identified in the land use plan: one in the southwest, two in the northwest and one in the northeast areas of the Metropolitan plan area.

Southwest Center The southwest center is planned to include a mix of professional office and retail uses, moderate density residential, transitioning outward to lower suburban-type densities.

These uses are shown on the Land Use Plan in concept; actual land use designations for the southwest center and the area around it will be determined through a more detailed land use and environmental analysis, including impacts to prime agricultural land.

Northwest Centers Two northwest centers are proposed and would contain retail commercial, light industrial, moderate and high density residential, and would be surrounded by low and estate residential densities. The vision for the northwest centers incorporates the following goals:

Focus on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body;

Link land uses to the Kern River where possible; and,

Exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity.

Northeast Center The center in the northeast will include retail commercial, professional office, moderate and high density residential, and will filter outwards to lower densities. The vision for the northeast center incorporates the following goals:

APRIL 2009 2.1-4 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Focus on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body;

Link land uses to the Kern River where possible; and,

Exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity.

Secondary Centers In addition to the primary centers, peripheral development will also be focused in smaller, secondary centers such as in the communities of Lamont and Greenfield, with local-serving commercial services and residential uses. These unincorporated communities are recognized as unique agricultural-related communities separate and distinct from the City of Bakersfield.

The General Plan requires that the distinctive identities of these communities should be encouraged through subsequent actions and plans.

2.1.2 ISSUES Implementation of the basic land use principles relies on the goals and policies identified in the General Plan. Goals and policies should be clear and concise to adequately relate the intent of the City and County vision for the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area.

Revisions to the Centers Concept

As discussed above, the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan establishes the “Centers” and “Resources” concepts to direct growth in new urban areas and peripheral areas.

However, implementation of the Centers concept has been a challenge in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The 2002 Metropolitan General Plan lacks clear direction and guidance for implementation of the Centers concept. Some of the specific challenges identified with implementation of the Centers concept that must be addressed in the General Plan update include:

Lack of measurable standards for centers in the General Plan policies.

No clear direction as to the anticipated locations of the centers.

Lack of clear definition for the functions of the centers.

Little distinction in policies between primary and secondary centers.

Lack of connectivity between centers.

Despite these challenges with the 2002 General Plan, a number of small centers have been created since 2002 including the California Avenue Office Park and the Northwest Promenade. Overall however, the Centers concept has not met with much success due to

2.1-5 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

these challenges. Nonetheless, the overall intent of creating distinctive activity centers remains a viable land use planning model—cities throughout California and the US are using these concepts, and recently enacted state legislation (Senate Bill 375) mandates an approach which is very similar in its intent to discourage sprawling patterns of development.

However, due to the identified challenges, there is a need to revise the Centers concept to include more clear and concise standards for implementation. The discussion below outlines an alternative concept which follows the basic intent of the Centers while refocusing the implementation concepts in the current General Plan.

Building Blocks Concept The “Building Blocks” concept is an alternative land use planning model that will support Metropolitan Bakersfield’s overall goals of creating walkable, livable and sustainable development in both existing and new areas of the community by:

Creating distinct, human-scaled activity centers;

Encouraging walking and bicycling; and,

Being more sustainable by providing more housing options, more travel choices, and more ways for residents to reduce their use of expensive energy supplies (such as gasoline).

Building Blocks, while similar to the Centers concept, are comprised of Neighborhoods, Regions, and Urban Centers. The following summaries of Neighborhoods, Regions and Urban Centers identify the general purpose of the building block and provide uses found in each.

The general criteria identified in the summaries below will be used to develop General Plan policies.

Neighborhoods A Neighborhood is a compact, walkable residential area, generally 1/3 to 1/2 mile in radius (up to about one mile across), as this is the distance an average person would comfortably walk or bicycle. In some areas, this overall dimension may be larger, due to the existing settlement pattern.

Neighborhoods will generally be developed at densities of 6-8 du/ac—a higher overall density than has been built in the past in the Bakersfield area. The overall density in some Neighborhoods will be lower than this guideline where the existing pattern of development is already at a very low density or where low density residential areas are planned.

APRIL 2009 2.1-6 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS

Community Centers often form a Neighborhood Center, a gathering place for residents.

At the core of each Neighborhood is the Neighborhood Center, a small-scale, neighborhood serving activity center. Neighborhood Centers are gathering places where people can congregate and interact. Typical Neighborhood Centers include schools (elementary and middle/junior high schools), libraries, community centers, parks that feature activity elements (i.e. playground and tennis court(s) and basketball court(s)), or neighborhood serving commercial uses (small market, coffee shop, small restaurant, etc.; total of less than 10,000 sq ft of retail space). Neighborhood Centers will also include higher density housing.

Regions A Region is a collection of Neighborhoods. Regions feature a mix of residential dwelling types, including the single-family areas found in the Neighborhoods and multifamily development near the Neighborhood Center.

At the center of each Region is the Regional Center. Regional Centers serve the daily needs of their service areas and are spaced 1 ½ to 2 miles. Regional Centers are primarily commercial places, featuring stores, offices, restaurants, and services. Multiple tenants in a pedestrian-friendly commercial development make up the character of the Regional Center, including grocery stores, drug stores, and restaurants. Single tenant retail size is developed at a maximum of 50,000 square feet so that retail concentrates its services on it own Region and is not aimed at a regional market. Residential uses may be developed above the retail and/or office tenants/spaces typically at a density of 6 to 12 du/ac. Regional Centers are often developed with higher density residential sites immediately adjacent (8-18 du/ac).

2.1-7 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Urban Center Urban Centers are pedestrian friendly “places” where people go to gather, shop, and be entertained. They can be centers of culture or recreation. It is anticipated that they may in some way develop a nightlife.

Urban Centers are a collection of parcels, streets, and public areas that include core non-residential uses that provide additional services to residents beyond their immediate Neighborhood or Region. The Urban Center is designed not to compete with the Regional Centers for retail customers, though some competition can be expected. The majority of buildings have their main entrance opening onto a street or square. Pedestrian circulation within the Urban Center is paramount. Visitors park their cars in shared surface lots or parking structures. Public access and transportation to the Urban Center is critical to its success in serving the entire community. Vertical and horizontal integration of uses in the Urban Center creates dynamic hubs of activity.

Retail uses include restaurants and general retail (basic clothing stores, book/music stores, dry cleaners, etc.). Large-scale tenants (>50k sq ft) should be limited in an Urban Center. Retail commercial development in the Urban Center will likely be comprised of at least 50% of the total square footage. Other uses may include service, office, and/or residential uses.

Apartments, townhouses, and lofts are developed at or above 20 du/ac in the center and decreasing in density as the distance from the center increases. The goal is a smooth transition from high-density multifamily residential to low (6 du/ac) single family residential.

Office uses may also be in the Urban Center, but are usually 2,000 to 10,000 square feet in size, each. Offices might account for 20% of all development.

In the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, the Urban Centers building block includes the Downtown.

Revising the General Plan to include the Building Blocks concept will provide better focus and clarification of the land uses in the planning area and allow Metropolitan Bakersfield to successfully achieve the community’s goals of creating walkable, livable, and sustainable development in both existing and new areas of the community. The discussions and recommended changes to the General Plan identified in this Existing Conditions report reflect the inclusion of the Building Blocks concept in the General Plan update.

While revisions are being made to the Centers concept to reflect the standards and land use patterns of the Building Blocks concept, the "Resources" concept will still remain an important part of the General Plan update. This concept will continue to encourage linkages to unique resources, including the Kern River and the foothills, capitalize and promote utilization of the planning area’s natural and visual resources and will also be reflected in the discussions and recommended changes to the General Plan throughout this document.

APRIL 2009 2.1-8 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Other Issues

In addition to revising the Centers concept, a number of other specific issues have been identified that further inhibit implementation of the General Plan land use principles or have not been adequately covered and need to be addressed by the General Plan Update. These issues were derived from public input received through the May 2007 Phase I Town Hall Meetings and various surveys conducted in conjunction with the KernCOG Regional Blueprint process and from input received through discussions with City of Bakersfield and Kern County staff. Comments received were consolidated into the following primary issues:

Infill Development and Redevelopment

Mixed-Use Development

Connectivity

Urban/Rural Interface

Urban Decay

Rescission of Existing Specific Plans

Consistency Between City and County Standards

Change in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Boundary

Ultimate Build-out of the Metropolitan Area

An evaluation of each issue relative to the existing General Plan policies was conducted and specific challenges were identified. These challenges must be addressed through the General Plan Update process to better achieve the basic land use principles and the City and County’s vision for the General Plan Land Use Element. Recommendations for changes that should be made to the General Plan are provided.

Issue: Infill Development and Redevelopment The development of vacant properties in built-up areas (infill development) and the redevelopment of existing built-up areas are two strategies to provide housing and commercial space without developing new land at the edge of urban areas.

Encouraging infill development and redevelopment of underutilized areas in the existing urban areas is a basic principle of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Further, an increased amount of infill development and redevelopment would also mean reduced development pressure on surrounding agricultural land, hillsides, and riparian corridors, increased public transit opportunities and improved walkability. These benefits were each identified by citizens during the May 2007 public workshops as important to the success of Metropolitan Bakersfield.

2.1-9 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Development of vacant properties surrounded by existing development presents many obstacles that reduce the frequency and success of infill and redevelopment projects. These include:

Compatibility with neighboring uses including design, noise, glare, and traffic impacts;

Compatibility with adjacent developed properties in relation to lot size, building massing, height and design;

The provision of public services such as water, sewer and storm drainage to serve the infill development also requires that significant work be done by the developer to upgrade these existing services, which often results in prohibitive cost investment for one developer; and,

Roadway widening may be required to meet existing level of service standards but may be infeasible due to adjacent developed properties.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Infill Development And Redevelopment? The General Plan Land Use Element contains the following policies to encourage infill development and allow for the intensification of existing commercial and residential areas:

Land Use Policy 6: Retain existing residential neighborhoods as designated on the Land Use Plan, and allow for the infill of residential land uses which are compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood (I-11).

Land Use Policy 9: Permit the conversion of existing single-family neighborhoods to higher densities in those areas in which (1) there are physical and economic conditions which warrant the replacement of existing units, (2) the uses are contiguous with other higher density uses, and (3) adequate infrastructure services are available and/or provided for by developers (I-1).

Land Use Policy 19: Allow for the intensification and development of existing commercial areas in an infill fashion (I-1).

Land Use Policy 25: Provide for infill of commercial land uses to be compatible with the scale and character of existing commercial districts and corridors (I-1).

Land Use Policy 78: Accommodate new projects which are infill or expansion of existing urban development (I-1).

1 This notation refers the reader to specific implementation measures identified in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. While these notations have been included in this Report, they are not germane to the discussion within the scope of this Report.

APRIL 2009 2.1-10 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Land Use Policy 86: Encourage infill of vacant parcels (I-10).

The General Plan also contains goals and policies throughout other elements of the document that address infill development and redevelopment as follows:

Circulation-Streets Policy 38: Exempt the downtown Bakersfield redevelopment area and small infill projects from the Level of Service Standard to facilitate infill projects and downtown redevelopment and in recognition of the higher traffic levels inherent to a vital central core (I-31).

Conservation-Ag Policy 16: Future development which involves in-fill of the urban area as opposed to development on the urban fringes shall be encouraged (County Policy).

In addition to the policies contained in the General Plan, the City has pursued infill development and revitalization efforts through the City’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The RDA has established redevelopment plans to revitalize Bakersfield’s downtown area (“Downtown Redevelopment Area”) as well as two other districts in the City (“Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment Area” and “Old Town Kern Redevelopment Area”). Kern County currently does not have a Redevelopment Agency. However, Kern County is investigating the use of redevelopment law and other strategies for areas such as the Oildale Community.

Challenges The General Plan does not define “infill” development.

The General Plan policies are general and need to provide greater focus on how infill development could be encouraged.

The General Plan policies relating to infill development are spread out throughout the document, making them difficult to locate.

Many existing General Plan policies are redundant.

Existing incentives are not included in the General Plan.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Identify target areas for infill development and provide graphic representation of where those areas are located in the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area.

2. Incorporate new policies and expand on existing policies to allow for exceptions to minimum standards, including Level of Service standards. This would prevent individual projects from having to prepare Environmental Impact Reports to repeatedly adopt a Statement of Overring Considerations for issues previously addressed.

2.1-11 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

3. Consolidate the location of policies on infill development in the General Plan to make these policies easier to identify.

4. Coordinate policies and implementing actions with redevelopment plans and programs of the Redevelopment Agency.

5. Incorporate incentives for infill and redevelopment that were identified in the Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020 plan.

Issue: Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development combines residential uses with one or more other uses, such as office, retail, civic, entertainment or even manufacturing. Mixed-use can be “vertical” (several land uses in one structure) or “horizontal” (several land uses on a large site).

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a form of mixed-use development (see Figures 2.1.2-1a and 2.1.2-1b Examples of Mixed-use and Transit-Oriented Development). It refers to development at a transit access point – a station or location served by one or more transit lines – that has buildings with varied activities within an easy walk of the transit stop. Typically, TODs include higher-density residential uses, higher-intensity retail and office uses, a waiting area for transit users and land uses oriented to transit riders, and access and facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Mixed-use development encompasses many of the basic principles of the General Plan, including providing for more connectivity, promoting pedestrian activity, increasing densities, and providing for infill and redevelopment opportunities. Mixed-use development is also one of the primary development strategies that may reduce overall greenhouse gas emission reduction goals identified under Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375 (see discussion under Issue: Climate Change and Sustainability in Section 2.3 Conservation Element for information on AB 32 and SB 375). The 2002 centers concept specifically encourages people to live and work in the same area and promotes a mixed-use land development pattern, as will the revised criteria associated with the Building Blocks concept. Mixed-use development was also identified by many of the Spring, 2007 public workshop attendants as being a viable development pattern for Metropolitan Bakersfield.

Mixed-use developments can provide a number of benefits:

Creation of a variety of housing opportunities.

Support of retail uses by placing them closer to residences than in traditional development.

Reduction in residential development costs by sharing amenities and parking with other uses.

Reduction in automobile traffic as people can live, work and shop in the same area.

APRIL 2009 2.1-12 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.1.2-1A EXAMPLES OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

2.1-13 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.1.2-1B EXAMPLES OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

APRIL 2009 2.1-14 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Mixed-Use Development? The General Plan Land Use Element contains the following policy addressing mixed-use:

Land Use Policy 1.b: Mixed-use (MUC- max. 3.0 FAR): Major commercial centers combining professional office, major retail and commercial support services. This designation would be warranted for intensive development characteristic of a commercial center in the city. It also provides the opportunity for integration of medium and high density residential uses in conjunction with commercial activities in order to create an active street life, enhance personal safety by ensuring the presence of people in the streets at different times, and promote the vitality of businesses.

The Land Use Element also contains policies that encourage mixed-use development patterns through implementation of the Centers concept. While the policies do not specifically refer to mixed-use or transit oriented development, the intent of these policies was to develop diverse centers containing a mix of uses:

Land Use Policy 45: Allow for the development of a center in southwest Bakersfield which is a focal point of activity and includes a mix of professional office and retail uses, moderate density residential, and filters outward to lower suburban-type densities, according to the following principles (I-1):

a. Encourage focus on an open space amenity such as a park or water body;

b. Provide opportunity for the development of residential units above ground floor commercial;

c. Encourage land use link with the Kern River and promote pedestrian activity within the center.

Land Use Policy 46: Allow for the development of centers in northwest Bakersfield to serve the Rosedale Community and adjacent rural areas, containing retail commercial, light industrial, moderate and high density residential, and is surrounded by low and estate residential densities, according to the following principles (I-1):

a. Attempt to focus on open space amenities;

b. Promote pedestrian activity and where feasible attempt to link land uses with the Kern River.

Land Use Policy 47: Allow for the development of a low density "village-like" center in the Northeast as a focal point of activity which includes retail commercial, professional offices, moderate and high density residential, and

2.1-15 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

filtering outwards to lower densities, according to the following principles (I-1, I-6, I-8).

a. Attempt to focus on open space amenities;

b. Cluster development to take advantage of views;

c. Encourage development to preserve public views of foothill topography and sensitive habitats;

d. Provide the opportunity for the development of residential units above ground floor commercial;

e. Promote pedestrian activity and use of greenbelt links between land uses.

Challenges Minimal policies are contained in the General Plan specifically addressing or encouraging mixed-use development.

The policies referring to creation of centers throughout the planning area do not provide adequate direction on how mixed-use could or should be incorporated.

The General Plan does not identify locations for each of the ten (10) centers identified for development, making implementation of policies relating to these centers, including any associated mixed-use development opportunities, difficult and unclear.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate specific criteria for including mixed-use development in the development of Regions and Urban Centers (the Building Blocks concept).

2. Identify where Region and Urban Centers are to be located in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and provide a map(s) of these locations.

3. Incorporate policies that encourage specific types of mixed-use development, including transit oriented developments.

4. Coordinate policies and implementing actions with redevelopment plans and programs of the Redevelopment Agency to encourage mixed-use and transit- oriented development.

5. Incorporate policies to allow for exceptions to the existing thresholds of significance and reduce barriers to mixed-use and higher density development.

APRIL 2009 2.1-16 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Issue: Connectivity

Providing connections, particularly non-vehicular connections, is a key feature of the 2002 centers and resources concepts. The centers concept encourages people to live and work in the same area and, thus, serves to minimize sprawl and reduce traffic by providing for the opportunity to walk or bike. The resources concept proposes that linkages to unique resources such as the Kern River or the foothills be encouraged. The following goals outlined in the basic principles for development of centers in new urban areas captures the intent of both of these concepts:

Focus development on a major open space amenity, such as a park or a lake or pond;

Provide trail connections and access to the Kern River where possible; and,

Exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design applied to encourage pedestrian activity.

The desire for walking and biking paths to connect land uses was a recurring comment at the May 2007 public workshops.

However, despite the goals of the existing General Plan to encourage pedestrian activity and provide more linkages, there remain a number of obstacles to allowing for adequate connectivity:

Construction of sound walls surrounding new residential developments, limiting both vehicular and pedestrian access points;

Construction of walls between uses such as a commercial center and an adjacent residential area, limiting access points;

Street layouts that are designed to prevent through-traffic such as cul-de-sacs, dead- end streets and circuitous, curvilinear streets which are difficult to navigate and often only provide one or two points of access to an area.

See also Sections 2.2 Circulation Element and 2.3 Conservation Element for further discussion on connectivity.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Connectivity? The General Plan Land Use Element contains the following policies to encourage connectivity between land uses:

2.1-17 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

a. Encourage focus on an open space amenity such as a park or water body;

b. Provide opportunity for the development of residential units above ground floor commercial;

c. Encourage land use link with the Kern River and promote pedestrian activity in the center.

a. Attempt to focus on open space amenities;

b. Promote pedestrian activity and where feasible attempt to link land uses with the Kern River.

a. Attempt to focus on open space amenities;

b. Cluster development to take advantage of views;

c. Encourage development to preserve public views of foothill topography and sensitive habitats;

d. Provide the opportunity for the development of residential units above ground floor commercial;

e. Promote pedestrian activity and use of greenbelt links between land uses.

In addition to the policies contained in the Land Use Element, the General Plan contains goals and policies in other Elements that also address connectivity:

Open Space Goal 5: Create 20 major tree-covered corridors that connect to and include the Kern River Parkway, safe bikepaths and GET bus routes.

Parks Policy 14: Plan for and expand regional recreation opportunity in connection with the development and conservation of appropriate areas along the Kern River (I-4, I-8).

APRIL 2009 2.1-18 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Parks Policy 27: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle linkages between residential and commercial uses (I-11).

Parks Policy 28: Encourage the establishment of equestrian trails where they link residential development to the Kern River in areas of the northeast and northwest where horses are permitted by zoning (I-2, I-11).

Challenges The policies do not address the construction of sounds walls or street design directly, which are two of the major obstacles to providing connectivity.

The General Plan does not identify locations for each of the ten (10) centers identified for development, making implementation of policies relating to these centers difficult and unclear.

There is a lack of measurable standards to facilitate smaller centers.

Policies encouraging connectivity are focused on the proposed centers only and provide no real direction for development in the remainder of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area.

The policies are too general and provide no real direction in providing minimum access points between land uses or adjacent developments.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate measurable standards for “connectivity” in the development of Neighborhoods, Villages and Districts, as called for under the Building Blocks concept, including connectivity between the proposed centers.

2. Identify conceptual locations where Neighborhoods, Regions, and Urban Centers are planned to be in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and provide map(s) of these locations.

3. Incorporate policies to establish minimum noise standards and allow for exceptions to these standards when appropriate to allow breaks in sound wall requirements and encourage greater connectivity between land uses.

4. Allow alternative standards to reduce noise levels such as landscaped buffers or alternative design to be considered in place of a sound wall requirement.

5. Incorporate policies that require minimum vehicular and non-vehicular access points between land uses such as commercial/office and residential neighborhoods.

6. Incorporate policies that encourage grid type patterns for street layouts, which would provide for multiple access points through neighborhoods.

2.1-19 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Issue: Urban/Rural Interface Much of the development on the edges of the urbanized area consists of rural residential or estate residential developed with large lots ranging from 1 to 5 acres. As the urban areas of Metropolitan Bakersfield continue to develop and expand, interfaces between these existing low density residential land uses and new urban development with higher densities will occur more frequently, as will opposition to these new developments.

Issues that may occur when the proposed development is new residential or commercial include:

Lot sizes and density (desire for larger lots consistent with existing rural development)

Building massing and design

Light and glare (rural areas tend to be darker at night than more urban or suburban areas)

Traffic generation

Noise

Large animal keeping

The 2002 General Plan basic land use principles for development in the existing urban areas provide for new construction to be developed at prevailing densities. However, the basic land use principles for new urban areas and development in peripheral areas provide no direction for new development to be constructed at prevailing densities. Rather, development in new urban areas and in peripheral areas is encouraged to incorporate a mix of uses, including higher densities for residential development.

See also Section 2.3 Conservation Element for further discussion on the interface between agricultural uses and mineral resource uses.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address The Urban/Rural Interface? The Land Use Element includes the following policies, focused primarily on residential and commercial development in existing urban or infill areas:

APRIL 2009 2.1-20 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

adequate infrastructure services are available and/or provided for by developers (I-1).

Land Use Policy 10: Accommodate high and high-medium density residential adjacent to existing and planned commercial, multi-family, and principal transportation corridors (I-1).

Land Use Policy 19: Allow for the intensification and development of existing commercial areas in an infill fashion (I-1).

Land Use Policy 25: Provide for infill of commercial land uses to be compatible with the scale and character of existing commercial districts and corridors (I-1).

Challenges

Policies specifically addressing the interface between new and existing development and are focused on development in existing urban areas only.

No policies address the urban/rural interface for development in the new urban areas or development in peripheral areas of the planning area.

The policies do provide direction or criteria for minimizing potential conflicts between lower density development and higher density development, including commercial development.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate policies that provide direction to development of new construction in areas with existing development, particularly in new urban areas and the peripheral areas.

2. Include standards for setbacks, landscaping, lighting requirements, etc. to minimize potential conflicts between residential and commercial urban and rural uses, including transitions from urban to rural densities.

3. Identify areas that are to be preserved as rural residential in the Metropolitan area.

Issue: Urban Decay The issue of urban decay and how it relates to land use planning and the study of environmental impacts has received additional attention since the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan was adopted. Urban decay—to the extent that it resulted in physical blight in a community—is an issue that must be addressed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The focus has been on “big-box” stores and their effects on other businesses in the community. If local businesses (as well as those in surrounding areas) are unable to compete with the big-box store and go out of business, long-term vacancies and physical

2.1-21 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

blight can result—this is the “physical change” that the court in Bakersfield found to be subject to CEQA review.

Adequate study of the potential physical impacts resulting from proposed development is key in addressing the issue. The method through which the City and County can evaluate these potential impacts is by requiring so-called “urban decay” studies for defined projects (typically “big-box” stores), and incorporating the findings of these studies into the environmental review process.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Urban Decay? The Land Use Element includes the following policy, focused primarily on commercial development in existing urban or infill areas:

Land Use Policy 30: Street frontages along all new commercial shall be landscaped (I-1):

a. Require new large retail commercial development projects to evaluate decay impacts on existing commercial uses as set forth in the implementation measures (I-18, I-19, I-20, I-21).

The following implementation measures are included in the Land Use Element to address urban decay:

Land Use Implementation 18: Require an Urban Decay Study for a retail commercial shopping center proposed or estimated to be over 250,000 square feet Gross Leasable Area “(GLA) in size.

Land Use Implementation 19: Require an Urban Decay Study for a retail store that will occupy more than 90,000 square feet Gross Leasable Area (GLA) and twenty percent (20%) or more of the GLA is devoted to the sale of non-taxable merchandise.

Land Use Implementation 20: At time of site plan review, if an Urban Decay Study has not yet been prepared and a project meets or exceeds one of the thresholds listed above or additional or new information would make preparation of a new or revised Urban Decay Study prudent, an Urban Decay Study shall be prepared. Phased submittal of a PCD plan will require that assumptions regarding the total size, Gross Leasable Area, of the project at complete build out be made to enable the City to determine the need for an Urban Decay Study.

Land Use Implementation 21: If an Urban Decay Study has not been submitted, the City shall require a PCD or PCD Combining zone on all commercial projects over 20 acres in size. Retail Commercial designations in specific plan areas are exempt from the PCD requirement.

APRIL 2009 2.1-22 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Challenges The General Plan primarily addresses urban decay through implementation measures. Only one policy addresses the issue of urban decay in relation to commercial development.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate the existing implementation measures addressing urban decay in the General Plan.

Issue: Rescission of Existing Specific Plans There are three (3) specific plans within Kern County’s jurisdiction that will be rescinded and incorporated into the General Plan (see Figure 2.1.2-2 Specific Plans for Rescission). These are:

Western Rosedale Specific Plan

Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan

Casa Loma

City/County staff have identified the opportunity through the General Plan Update process to eliminate redundant policy documents, including these Specific Plans, and simplify the development process.

Policies from these Specific Plans unique to the Western Rosedale, Breckenridge Hills and Casa Loma Specific Plans will be retained and incorporated into the General Plan document as necessary.

How does the General Plan currently address incorporation of Specific Plans? The General Plan does not currently provide specific policies for the Western Rosedale Specific Plan area, the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan area, or the Casa Loma Specific Plan area.

Challenges Specific plan policies may differ from existing General Plan policies.

Land use designations in each specific plan may differ from those land use designations identified in the General Plan.

2.1-23 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.1.2-2 SPECIFIC PLANS FOR RESCISSION

APRIL 2009 2.1-24 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Recommended Changes to the General Plan

1. Identify where each of the specific plan areas are located in the Metropolitan Bakersfield plan area and provide graphic representation of these locations.

2. Retain policies from the specific plans that are specific to that plan area and consolidate these policies into one location in the General Plan.

3. Incorporate policies from the specific plans that are not area specific into the overall General Plan policies as appropriate.

4. Delete conflicting policies to ensure consistency in the General Plan.

Issue: Consistency between City and County Standards The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan is adopted separately by both the City of Bakersfield and Kern County as their respective General Plan document. The intent of adopting the same General Plan for the Metropolitan area is to encourage cooperative planning efforts between the City and the County and allow both jurisdictions to establish consistent standards for development.

Maintaining a joint General Plan document allows the City and County to work from the same set of guidelines and is a primary factor in ensuring consistency between City and County developments, particularly as County areas are annexed into the City. However, since the last comprehensive update to the General Plan in 2002, amendments to the General Plan have been adopted by each agency in an effort to respond to unique situations in their respective jurisdictional boundaries. This has resulted in some differences between the versions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan used by the City of Bakersfield and by Kern County—the two versions have diverged to some extent, primarily through the addition of policies.

In addition, implementation of the General Plan relies on a number of implementing documents including infrastructure and facility master plans, the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, public improvement standards, airport land use compatibility plans, and department policies. Many of these documents and standards are prepared and updated by the individual agency, which presents a challenge to ensuring consistent implementation of the General Plan policies.

To encourage consistent implementation of the General Plan, the City of Bakersfield and Kern County have formulated a number of agreements and established communication to provide intergovernmental coordination in the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. They include:

Joint Powers Agreement for fire protection services;

Joint Bakersfield City Council and Kern County Board of Supervisors meetings are conducted twice a year;

2.1-25 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Joint review and referral for development in the Kern River Plan Element planning areas;

Coordination between City and County public works and engineering staff; and,

Joint referral/review between City and County of all development requests and respective hearing notices and agendas.

Additional agreements and institutional procedures are also in place to enhance coordination between the City and the County including provision of service agreements and service standards based on the type of development proposed whether located in the City or County.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Consistency Between City And County Standards? The General Plan includes the following specific policies addressing consistency between the City and the County:

Land Use Policy 61: Coordinate a consistent design vocabulary between city and county for all public signage, including fixture type, lettering, colors, symbols, and logos (I-1, I-6).

Land Use Policy 92: In the county, all residential developments that provide complete public infrastructure improvements including community water distribution and sewage collection and treatment systems may be permitted a density increase up to 20 percent. All land division activities shall be consistent with this provision (I-1).

Land Use Policy 98: Coordinate the development of city and county permit information in a consistent format. (I-1, I-8, I-16)

The following implementation measures are also included to address consistency between City and County standards.

Land Use Implementation 1: Capital Improvements: The Capital Improvement Program is required to be consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plans. Appropriate plan proposals are programmed into city and county Capital Improvement Programs. Revenue sources may include general fund monies, general obligations bonds, benefit assessment districts, subventions and tax increment generated by redevelopment.

Land Use Implementation 1: Through joint City-County decision-making forums, continue to identify inconsistencies in urban services and concentrate efforts to be consistent.

APRIL 2009 2.1-26 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Conservation-Minerals Implementation 6: The County will rezone existing quarries, if necessary, to zones consistent with R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum), R-IA (Intensive Agriculture) or Industrial designations.

Challenges The General Plan has been amended over time by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County to respond to specific issues encountered by each jurisdiction. This has resulted in some differences between the General Plan versions used by the City and the County.

The General Plan is implemented through a variety of ordinances and department policies and standards including infrastructure and facility master plans, the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and public improvement standards. These implementing documents are not always consistent between the City and the County, resulting in inconsistent implementation of the General Plan.

The density requirements differ slightly between the City and the County for the same General Plan land use designations.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate all amendments to General Plan policies adopted by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County since the last comprehensive update, including all new land use designations. 2. Promote compatible land use designations and density requirements for all land use designations. 3. Include policies that provide clear direction on what standards prevail in the event that differing policies are required during implementation of General Plan policies. 4. Enhance the existing policies relating to consistency between City and County standards. 5. Identify the agreements and institutional structures in place to ensure consistent implementation of the General Plan. Issue: Change in Metropolitan Bakersfield Boundary The current Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area boundary includes 408 square miles (about 260,000 acres) of land including the existing City of Bakersfield limits, the City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Kern County lands outside the City’s SOI. Minor modifications to the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area boundary are necessary to reflect changes that have occurred since the 2002 General Plan (see Figure 2.1.2-3 Existing and Proposed Metropolitan Bakersfield Planning Area). These include: Removing approximately 3,627 acres from the northern edge of the planning area west of State Route 99 and north of Seventh Standard Road to eliminate those lands

2.1-27 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

now with the City of Shafter’s revised General Plan boundary and Sphere of Influence.

Addition of approximately 3,837 acres to the northeast of the planning area resource and urban reserve lands.

The modifications to the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area boundary are minimal and would result in a planning area of approximately the same size. Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1) Amend the Metropolitan Bakersfield plan area boundary to exclude the City of Shafter planning area and include the additional acreage identified.

Issue: Infrastructure and Build-Out of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area To address these challenges, in 2000–2001, the County, City, Caltrans, and Kern COG jointly commissioned the Bakersfield System Study to address a comprehensive evaluation of the region’s roadway network. The results of that study are reflected in the current adopted circulation element of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. It identifies a regional network of freeways, parkways, arterials, and collectors that when fully implemented are proposed to provide regional mobility and reduced congestion. Estimates for full buildout of all the necessary regional improvements along with additional facilities such as 7th Standard Road, the South Beltway, and the SR-99/Snow Road interchange range from $2 to 3 billion in today’s dollars. Although construction of regional roadways has occurred with money from TIF, development-constructed improvements, and federal and state highway money, the freeways are in progress but not completed. Although the TIF has been very effective in providing localized supplemental funding, the accelerated growth from 2002 to 2004 in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area of 4.7 percent per year resulted in housing construction and amendments to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan that required roadway network improvements which are still in the design stage. Environmental clearance, design, right of way acquisition and construction of a new freeway requires 10 to 15 years to complete. Given the size and scope of required improvements, the impacts from project amendments in the noncore area of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are significant and cannot be accommodated by the TIF program or the localized supplemental funding proposed by the Bakersfield System Study. While a regional network has been identified, the issues of timing (when the actual improvements will be completed) and funding (guaranteed sources of money that will increase to match inflation) are challenging. The issues to be examined include a realistic assessment of the design and available funding over the next 30 years against the background that the County does not have a dedicated sales tax for transportation funding, the funding from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is limited by competition among agency requests across California, federal money (Thomas Roads Improvement Program) is building some needed infrastructure but not all, and local matching funds are limited. The pressures of this accelerated growth also affects other infrastructure (parks, flood control, police and fire stations, schools, and other facilities).

APRIL 2009 2.1-28 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.1.2-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD PLANNING AREA

2.1-29 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Second, the environmental analysis of a number of large-scale projects (such as the now withdrawn “Gateway” project in the southwest portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and projects at the western boundary of the Western Rosedale Specific Plan) have begun to lead City and County staff to conclude that the infrastructure needs of development in areas far from the existing urbanized area create challenges regardless of whether funding is available or not.

Roadways, in particular, have begun to be recognized as a major limiting factor on the viability of future growth in which the City’s and County’s desired levels of traffic service can be met. Traffic analyses for outlying developing projects has shown that roadways throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area begin to fail under the increasing demands of drivers trying to reach SR-99 and the downtown area. These traffic analyses show that as more development occurs in the western portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, traffic conditions in the central portion worsen.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Infrastructure and Build-Out Of Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area? The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan encourages infill development and redevelopment (refer to Issue section for Infill Development and Redevelopment). By encouraging development in the existing developed area (where existing roadways and other facilities may have sufficient capacity), the General Plan’s existing infill policies help address the issues outlined above. However, the General Plan currently does not contain implementing actions, specific standards or incentives to facilitate infill development.

Challenges In general, development projects can be proposed in any location once the required environmental review has been completed (except where it is precluded by features such as floodplains, habitat areas, Williamson Act land use contracts, etc.). As noted above, this is projected to lead to significant roadway congestion and other issues, and the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan lacks policies that address the additional infrastructure demands and costs created by development in outlying areas.

In summary, the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan lacks the following:

The General Plan provides few incentives to promote infill development or redevelopment.

The General Plan does not define “infill” development, leading to difficulties deciding which projects should be encouraged or promoted.

The General Plan does not currently discourage development or require additional standards for development in outlying areas where the provision of infrastructure and services are more costly, has regional impacts, or is unavailable.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan This section examines a range of policies options for inclusion in the General Plan, each of which reflects an increasing level of City/County involvement in channeling the location and

APRIL 2009 2.1-30 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

timing of growth. Ranked from least to most City/County involvement in the location and timing of future growth are:

1. “No Change” – Continuing to implement existing City/County policies and programs, allowing the property owners and applicants to propose development throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and addressing impacts on a project-by-project basis;

2. “Supplemental Development Criteria” – Allowing development to proceed in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area in locations selected by property owners and applicants, but with additional development requirements for projects outside of the area currently programmed for major infrastructure improvements; and

3. “Phased Growth” – The phasing of growth according to a plan approved by the City and County to determine where growth in the near and long terms will occur.

These options—along with pros and cons associated with each—are described below. It is specifically intended that the discussions below are starting points for the development of detailed policies. Once a general direction has been established (which may include a blending of two or more options), more specific policy and implementation language will be developed.

Policy options 2 and 3 (“Supplemental Development Criteria” and “Phased Growth”, respectively), described below, refer to a draft “Urban - Opportunities and Reserve Map” which has been prepared by City and County staff (see Figure 2.1.2-4). The “Urban - Opportunities and Reserve Map” divides the Metropolitan Bakersfield area into three different districts, described below.

“2035 Buildout”—This is the area (shown in tan) which has been projected to develop by the year 20352. Projections of Year 2035 traffic performed for the TRIP projects and other long-range planning projects have been based on growth occurring in this area. As part of these other planning efforts, future population, housing, and employment figures for this area have been reviewed and vetted and are generally agreed upon by all of the planning and infrastructure agencies in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

The “2035 Buildout” area also has two key features related to the traffic and financing issues noted earlier: Traffic mitigation fees are already in place to support the development of roadways in this area; and the Metropolitan Bakersfield area roadway and freeway system has been designed to support growth in this area and the system continues to function generally at acceptable levels of congestion service if growth is limited to this area.

2 Note: As discussed later in this report, the years included in this discussion (2035 and 2050) are based on projections of future growth and are not proposed to be used to time growth. For example, the “2035” area could develop before or after that date, depending on the pace of new residential and commercial development.

2.1-31 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

“Urban Reserve”—This is an area which has been projected to be developed between 2035 and 2050. This area (shown in blue) includes portions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that are not significantly constrained by hazards, habitat, agricultural preserves, or other features.

Existing traffic mitigation fees being charged for development in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are not sufficient to provide for the construction of roadways to serve this area. In addition, as noted earlier, the traffic generated in this area would cause the failure of roadways both locally and in the central portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Supplemental funding is needed as well as different design standards to integrate this area into the buildout area.

“Future Planning Reserve”—This area (shown in green) is the remainder of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. This area is currently estimated to develop after 2050, based on projections of future growth. As noted earlier, several large-scale projects have been proposed in this area, although none are being actively pursued at this time.

As with the “Urban Reserve” area, traffic mitigation fees currently being collected in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area do not provide for the construction of needed roadways in this area, and in addition, regional transportation linkages have not been developed that would serve growth in this area. Therefore, even with supplemental funding (which is not currently available from Federal, State or Local sources), a regional transportation solution for this area has not been identified. Traffic generated from development in this area would further exacerbate the congestion caused by development in the “Urban Reserve.”

Other growth areas are also shown on the draft “Urban – Opportunities and Reserve Map” but are not affected by the proposed Option 2 and 3 growth policies and are therefore not discussed here.

Policy Option 1 – “No Change” This approach would retain the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies and practices, which essentially allow the development community to determine the timing and location of development in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (consistent with land use policies and recognizing physical constraints such as flooding and other hazards, habitat areas, etc.) The City and County would continue to process development applications, generally requiring detailed environmental analysis and (for approved projects) the payment of current development impact fees. Infrastructure issues and fees would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis.

Pros Retains the status quo, avoiding potential challenges from owners of land in outlying portions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

APRIL 2009 2.1-32 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Allows the City and County to consider development projects in any portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and does not preclude potentially valuable projects from being submitted.

Allows development in outlying areas where large landholdings predominate, facilitating the master planning of larger areas.

Cons The currently proposed fiscally constrained freeway and circulation system does not provide acceptable Levels of Service in outlying areas outside of the area currently estimated to develop by 2035.

Analysis has shown that development in outlying areas will exceed the capacity of infrastructure—in particular roadways—regardless of the level of fees collected.

Current policies could allow the piecemeal conversion of agricultural areas, prematurely altering land use patterns in agricultural areas by allowing the development of pockets of urban uses into agricultural areas and increasing the potential for nuisance issues and other land use conflicts.

Mass transit options including increased bus systems, transportation systems management, and commuter/light rail transit need concentrations of density which may not occur if outlying areas develop instead of centralized urban areas.

Policy Option 2 – Supplemental Development Criteria This policy option represents an incremental increase in the control exerted by the City and County over the timing and location of growth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Under this proposal, the City and County would not define a specific plan for the phasing of development outside of the core area (the “2035 Buildout” area)—individual developments could be proposed in any portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

However, existing City and County policy would be changed in two important ways:

First, development in the “Urban Reserve” and “Future Planning Reserve” areas would be subject to increased planning and development requirements. Projects proposed in these areas would be required to provide more amenities, to adhere more stringently to “smart growth” requirements, and to include more detailed and restrictive development standards.

Second, development in these areas would be required to construct more infrastructure than similar projects located in the “2035 Buildout” area, and would be required to pay additional development impact fees (both in recognition of the additional need for new and/or expanded roads and other facilities created by growth outside the core area).

2.1-33 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.1.2-4 URBAN - OPPORTUNITIES AND RESERVE MAP

APRIL 2009 2.1-34 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Examples of expanded requirements for development outside the “2035 Buildout” area include:

1) Development should be comprehensively planned via a process that could include:

a) A development plan that provides for improved project design (architecture, landscaping, land use mix, better/unique urban design features, etc.) compared to typical projects in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

b) Project design that implements the mixed use/centers concepts to a higher degree than typical projects, including increased density, improved public transit, etc.

c) Opportunities for public transit that supports the planned land uses and minimizes impacts on the overall transportation system;

d) Capital improvement program including the estimated cost of capital projects identified in the development plan's infrastructure plan, how each capital project will be financed and a phasing plan for the development plan proposal including capital improvements.

e) Projects could also be required to meet minimum size requirements (possibly several hundred acres, one square mile, or larger) to encourage the master planning of land uses and infrastructure.

2) Early cancellation of Williamson Act Contracts would not be allowed;

3) Additional findings for projects would be required, potentially including:

a) The project will not constitute piecemeal conversion of a larger agricultural area and will not alter the stability of existing land use patterns in the area; and

b) The use and density proposed are compatible with surrounding land uses and will not interfere with existing uses, e.g. agricultural practices.

In addition to these requirements, development in the “Future Planning Reserve” could be required to construct all needed infrastructure improvements up front, (circulation being the most significant item to be built). In-lieu fees for needed improvements would generally not be accepted due to the potentially long timeframe needed for the City and/or County to garner sufficient funds to finance the projects themselves.

Potential pros and cons of this approach are described below:

2.1-35 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Pros Preserves the status quo, in that development projects could proceed in any location in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Owners of land outside of the “2035 Buildout” area would be able to develop their property for urban developments (with additional requirements).

Requirements for additional infrastructure and fees would help address (but not eliminate) potential roadway congestion and other issues.

Although traffic congestion and other problems would likely continue to result from development outside the core area, requirements for more transit-oriented development could reduce (but not eliminate) some impacts. Enhanced development standards could encourage the development of “high end” projects.

Cons This option would not eliminate problems associated with so-called “leapfrog” development—roads and other infrastructure would need to be extended to newly developing areas, potentially at a high monetary and/or environmental cost (when compared to incremental growth focused in the “2035 Buildout” area).

Because growth under this option would not be required to be adjacent to existing development (projects could be developed which could be distant from existing fire stations, police facilities, etc.), the cost of providing services would be increased due to the added time and distance or service levels could decline as public safety and other personnel are spread over a larger area.

Even with the construction of additional roadways in the ”Urban Reserve” or ”Future Planning Reserve” (blue- and green-shaded areas, respectively), traffic congestion in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area would substantially increase. Traffic modeling performed for several proposed projects in the northwestern portion of the Metropolitan area has shown widespread roadway congestion throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (including on roadways which are already built to their full width and which cannot be expanded).

Development requests for use of limited State and Federal transportation funding in outlying areas could delay the completion of existing planned essential regional transportation projects.

Policy Option 3 - Phased Development This option represents the most direct effort on the part of the City and County to determine both where and when growth should occur. Under this option, the “Urban – Opportunities and Reserve Areas Map” (or a refined version of the map) would be used to identify which areas would be developed first, with development in the “Urban Reserve” and “Future Planning Reserve” areas postponed until specific criteria have been met (as described below).

APRIL 2009 2.1-36 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

This type of phased approach to development has been used successfully in other jurisdictions in California, usually in combination with a detailed plan for the financing and construction of roadways and other infrastructure.

As applied to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, this strategy would use the “Urban Reserve” area as “Phase 2” and the “Future Planning Reserve” as “Phase 3” growth areas (Phase 1 would be the “2035 Buildout” area).

Development in Phases 2 and 3 would only be allowed when the preceding phase is at or approaching buildout. For example:

Growth could begin in Phase 2 when development in Phase 1 reaches a defined level (such as a percentage of total buildout). Phase 3 development would similarly follow when Phase 2 achieved the established buildout percentage.

A variation on the buildout percentage approach would be to instead calculate buildout percentages within a certain radius of a project site, rather than throughout the entire Phase 1 or Phase 2 area. This policy would better contain urbanization and encourage infill development while limiting exposure to land use conflicts between rural and urban land use interfaces. This phasing system would allow the path of development to remain in large part under the control of the development community, since future growth would occur as an extension of current growth—one outcome could be that all growth would be focused in a few parts of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area as developers sought out new development sites based on where existing urbanization exists.

Examples of potential phasing policies are shown below:

1. Infill development should occur first in the core area.

2. Development in Phases 2 and 3 would occur only under the following conditions:

The supply of residentially designated land in the preceding Phase area is 80% developed,3 or

Development within an X-mile radius of the project should be 80%4 built out, or

Less than five years’ supply of residentially designated land is available in the core area.5

3 For instance, Phase 2 development would begin only when Phase 1 was 80% developed. 4 References to radius distance and percentage buildout are for discussion only, and would be refined. 5 Note that the amount of available land may fluctuate over time depending on the pace of residential development. During periods of robust growth, a five-year supply of land would be greater than during periods of slower growth.

2.1-37 APRIL 2009 2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Pros Provides the most direct control over development and the greatest ability to match infrastructure capacity with future growth.

Provides clear direction to property owners and applicants about which properties should be considered for development.

Encourages compact development and infill which is needed for transit solutions (since Phase 2 and 3 areas would be tied to growth in the preceding phase, infill would be encouraged).

Reduces infrastructure costs by focusing roadway and other infrastructure development into a defined area.

Cons Greatest change from the status quo. Direct City/County intervention in the selection of locations and timing for development would be a substantial change in policy.

Property owners in Phases 2 and 3 would be precluded from developing their property under their own timeframes (although farming and other activities would be able to continue).

Potentially divisive discussions about the locations of the lines separating phases.

APRIL 2009 2.1-38 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

The Circulation Element of the General Plan describes the location and extent of existing and proposed transportation systems, including roadways, public transportation, airports, bicycle and pedestrian routes, railroads, and other means of moving people and goods.

2.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides circulation goals and policies in five distinct focus areas:

Streets,

Transit,

Bikeways,

Parking, and

Airports

While the General Plan addresses a wide range of travel choices, transportation in the Metropolitan area remains centered around the private car. Mirroring California and the US, most workers in Bakersfield (about 93%) use cars to get to work. The other seven percent use public transit (2%), bicycles (1%), or work at home (3%). The current breakdown of travel choice is shown below:

Commuter Mode Choice Bakersfield California U.S. Single-Occupant Vehicle 77% 71.8% 75.7% Carpool 16% 14.5% 12.2% Public Transit 2% 5.1% 4.7% Bicycling/Walking 2% 3.7% 3.3% Other Means 1% 1.0% 0.8% Work at Home 3% 3.8% 3.3% Sources: Citydata.com, US Census

The following is a brief overview of transportation issues as described by the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Streets The street system in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area has been developed in a grid pattern with arterials spaced at one-mile intervals, except in the central Bakersfield area where spacing is closer. Collector streets are spaced at half-mile intervals between arterials, also in a grid pattern.

2.2-1 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

In some newer areas, collector streets have been built in non-grid patterns to discourage through traffic. These irregular alignment patterns—as well as limited crossings over the Kern River, freeways, and railways within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area—decrease connectivity and options for trips, overloading some streets while others have very low traffic levels.

Metropolitan Bakersfield has a number of state routes running through the planning area. Metropolitan Bakersfield is located at the confluence of three major highways: SR-58 (Rosedale Highway), SR-99 (Golden State Avenue), and SR-178 (24th Street). Other State Routes that provide access to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area include SR-43 (Enos Lane), SR-65 (Porterville Highway), SR-119 (Taft Highway), SR-184 (Weedpatch Highway), and SR-223 (Bear Mountain Boulevard). Interstate 5 is located at the southwestern edge of the planning area and provides access to Bakersfield via SR-58, SR-119, and Stockdale Highway (see Figure 2.2.1-1 State Routes).

The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan recognizes there are existing points of congestion in the street system as a result of two primary causes:

1) The city is increasing in population and geographical area (spreading out), placing greater demands on the street system; and,

2) Physical barriers have disrupted the grid of arterial streets leading to discontinuities and funneling traffic onto a limited number of roads that cross the Kern River and other features such as canals, railroad tracks, and (in the case of freeways) established residential neighborhoods.

In addition, the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan recognizes that there are differing street design specifications between the City of Bakersfield and Kern County. For instance, while standard arterial roadways in both the County and City areas include 90 feet of roadway in 110 feet of right-of-way, the City of Bakersfield street standard calls for six lanes while the Kern County street standard calls for four. Both street standards have a raised median; however, the County allows for on-street parking while the City does not.

Another challenge to developing the street system in Metropolitan Bakersfield is the presence of older streets. Many of these older roadways are smaller than the standard designs because they predate modern standards.

In other instances, some areas are developed or could be developed with large lots under County standards that do not require urban-type street improvements. These narrower streets also contribute to congestion. As properties fronting the sub-standard streets develop or redevelop, the full width is required, resulting in streets with alternating wide and narrow stretches. The process of widening the entire length of a roadway may take many years. If no new development takes place (and with it, the opportunity to require dedication of land for the wider roadway), the cost to purchase land for street improvements may be prohibitive.

APRIL 2009 2.2-2 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.1-1 STATE ROUTES

2.2-3 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Transit Public transportation in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area includes local buses, intercity buses, AMTRAK, and paratransit service. As noted earlier, transit use in the Bakersfield area is very low compared to the state and the nation as a whole: about 2% of workers in Bakersfield use public transit to get to work, compared with about 5% in California and the US.

The largest system is Golden Empire Transit (GET), the local bus operator. GET operates eighteen routes (known as “fixed routes”) with 1,600 bus stops in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (see Figure 2.2.1-2 GET Bus Routes). GET-A-Lift provides complementary paratransit service for those who are physically unable to use the fixed route services.

Intercity bus operators provide connections to cities outside the Metropolitan Bakersfield areas. Intercity operators include Greyhound, Orange Belt Stages, Airport Bus of Bakersfield, and Kern County, which operates Kern Regional Transit. Kern Regional Transit provides service between Bakersfield and unincorporated communities, such as Buttonwillow, Lamont and the Kern River Valley, while the private carriers serve other major cities (see Figure 2.2.1-3 Kern Regional Transit Routes).

The City of Bakersfield is also served by the Amtrak passenger rail and bus system, as part of the San Joaquin line, via a station located in downtown Bakersfield. The San Joaquin line connects Bakersfield to other cities in the San Joaquin Valley, as well as to the San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles areas (see Figure 2.2.1-4 Amtrak Routes). Connections are available at the Amtrak station to the GET Bus service and Kern Regional Transit Bus service, which provide access from the Amtrak station to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

Bikeways The Kern County region is very conducive to bicycle transportation. The weather is nearly frost-free and from mid-April through mid-October sunny, dry and warm conditions make bicycling generally comfortable (with the exception of very hot days).

Combined with the nearly level terrain found in most of the region’s urbanized areas, the potential for travel by bicycle is very high, although the actual rate of bicycling (about 1% of all trips to work are by bike) remains lower than California and US averages (about 2%).

Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) developed and adopted the Kern County Bicycle Facilities Plan in October 2001. The purpose of the plan is to simplify and clarify bicycle travel facilities planning and serves as a basis of understanding for existing facilities and identifies where the system needs to be expanded.

APRIL 2009 2.2-4 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.1-2 GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT (GET) BUS ROUTES

2.2-5 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.1-3 KERN REGIONAL TRANSIT ROUTES

APRIL 2009 2.2-6 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.1-4 AMTRAK ROUTES

2.2-7 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.1-5 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BIKEWAYS

APRIL 2009 2.2-8 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

The goals, objectives and policies contained in the Kern County Bicycle Facilities Plan are not reflected in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. However, the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan does contain similar policies to those in the Bikeway Master Plan and does include maps of existing and future bike facilities from the Bikeway Master Plan. These include the bike path along the Kern River as well as over 30 miles of existing bike facilities throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (see Figure 2.2.1-5 Existing and Proposed Bikeways). Parking According to the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the city and county both require that parking must be accommodated in off-street parking areas or facilities dedicated to an individual use. Required parking is defined by each agency’s zoning ordinances, which specify the number of off-street parking spaces that must be provided by new development. Downtown Bakersfield is the one area that departs from the pattern of specific parking lots associated with each development. Many buildings in the downtown area rely on off-site parking. According to the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the City owns and operates several parking lots and one parking structure serving downtown businesses. Private parking structures and lots also exist in the downtown. Due to the existence of the city lots and the greater incidence of walking trips, and visitation to multiple businesses, downtown parking requirements in the zoning ordinance are reduced by 50 percent compared to the number of spaces required for the same use elsewhere in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Airports Two primary airports are located in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Meadows Field, the largest and busiest, is a County facility serving passenger and cargo needs. It handles commercial airlines and general aviation and is approved for international trips (Mexico). Bakersfield Municipal Airpark is a general aviation airport owned by the City of Bakersfield (see Figure 2.2.1-6 Airports). Both airports have adopted master plans which identify existing and future expansions and improvements for the facilities. Each master plan also identifies development constraints for the land surrounding the airports, which are reflected in the 2002 General Plan Land Use Element. However, Kern County adopted an updated Meadows Field Master Plan in June 2006 identifying facility expansions, including a new runway that could impact existing land use designations. Both airports are identified in the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which identifies criteria for height, noise, and safety around the airports and also determines compatibility of surrounding land uses based upon noise levels associated with airport operations and exposure of persons to crash hazards associated with aircraft and height restrictions According to their master plans, both airports will retain their current function: Bakersfield Airpark will be a general aviation airport, while Meadows Field will be the commercial and cargo air carrier airport for Kern County.

2.2-9 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.1-6 AIRPORTS

APRIL 2009 2.2-10 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.2.2 ISSUES Implementation of the circulation system, including alternative modes of transportation, relies on the effectiveness of the goals and policies identified in the General Plan. Goals and policies should be clear and concise to adequately relate the intent of the City and County vision for the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area and should be able to be implemented by the City, County, and developers.

Specific issues have been identified that inhibit implementation of the circulation system for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and need to be further addressed by the General Plan Update. These issues were derived from public input received through the May 2007 Phase I Town Hall Meetings and various surveys conducted in conjunction with the KernCOG Regional Blueprint process and from input received through discussions with City of Bakersfield and Kern County staff. Comments received were consolidated into the following primary issues, as discussed further in this section:

Roadway Capacity for Existing and Future Traffic

Alternate Communiting Options

Rail Travel

An evaluation of each issue relative to the existing General Plan policies was conducted and specific challenges were identified. These challenges must be addressed through the General Plan Update process to better achieve the City and County’s vision for the General Plan Circulation Element. Direction on what changes should be made to the General Plan is provided.

Issue: Roadway Capacity for Existing and Future Traffic Rapid increases in automobile travel coupled with limited roadway expansion have brought higher levels of traffic congestion. According to the 2004 Kern Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (Kern COG RTP), many Bakersfield streets currently operate at or above their design capacity, resulting in slow-moving traffic and long delays at intersections. Continuing growth and trip origins and destinations thinly spread in all directions throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area will continue to contribute to increased delays on streets and overburdened intersections.

Traffic congestion is also a result of physical constraints to developing or expanding the circulation system. As identified in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, there are a number of “choke points” on the local roadway system (see Figure 2.2.2-1 Physical Constraints to the Circulation System and Figure 2.2.2-2 Canals).

2.2-11 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.2-1 PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM

APRIL 2009 2.2-12 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.2-2 CANALS

2.2-13 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Major “choke points” on the roadway system are: The Kern River, which separates downtown Bakersfield from the growing suburbs to the north, presents a challenge to circulation since traffic crossing the river is concentrated at a limited number of river crossings. The relatively small number of crossing points over the Kern River affect traffic traveling between the southern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield and the area north of the Kern River by causing congestion at these crossing points.

State Route 99 (SR-99), which runs north-south through Metropolitan Bakersfield, presents a challenge to circulation since traffic moving east to west is concentrated at a limited number of state route crossings. The relatively small number of crossing points over SR-99 affect traffic traveling between west Metropolitan Bakersfield and east Metropolitan Bakersfeld by causing congestion at these crossing points. Further congestion is caused by traffic accessing the SR-99 on-and off-ramps, which are located at many of the east-west crossing points.

The local railway system requires expensive bridge or culvert crossings to eliminate interruptions caused by train traffic. Amtrak is currently operating six round-trip trains daily and anticipates, based on projected service needs, eight round-trips daily by the year 2010. In order not to impede the movement of the railway system within the Metropolitan area there are a limited number of traffic crossings. There are future plans to create grade separations at some of the highly traveled crossings. However, more grade separations should be planned for in order to improve vehicular traffic movement throughout the Metropolitan area.

The system of irrigation canals running through the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area also present challenges in developing a continuous circulation system. As with railways, many canal crossings require a relatively expensive bridge. Other canal crossings are accommodated by culverts.

Planned Improvements Several projects have been proposed that would help alleviate traffic congestion in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) released the State Route 99 Corridor Enhancement Master Plan in 2004 that includes plans for improvements on the SR-99 corridor in Bakersfield.

The construction or expansion of numerous freeways in the area has also been proposed, including the connection of SR-99 to SR-58 along the Golden State Boulevard corridor and the connection of SR-178 to Interstate 5, as well as many other smaller freeway construction projects.

The expansion of many existing arterials into expressways has also been proposed, including Taft Highway and Seventh Standard Road.

APRIL 2009 2.2-14 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

A major funding mechanism for future freeway and roadway improvements to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP). TRIP, which is primarily funded through federal monies, is a cooperative effort between the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, Caltrans and the Kern Council of Governments. These agencies are committed to finding and implementing solutions that meet the region’s long- term transportation needs. Caltrans is also releasing portions of State Highway roadways to local control, such as Golden State Avenue/Union Avenue (SR-204), Weedpatch Highway (SR-184), and Rosedale Highway (SR-58), though SR-58 would not be released until the Centennial Corridor connection is made.. Releasing State Highways to local control, as appropriate, could streamline the design and construction process of needed improvements. TRIP is providing for numerous roadway improvement projects in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, including:

The construction of a beltway around Metropolitan Bakersfield, to be completed as three projects:

− North Beltway Project – Widening of Seventh Standard Road between SR-43 and SR-99.

− North Beltway Project – Grade-separation of intersections and railroad crossings.

− West Beltway Project – Construction of a six-lane north-south freeway from SR- 119 to 7th Standard Road. However, due to funding of the Centennial Corridor connection, construction of the West Beltway Project may not occur in the foreseeable future

The Westside Parkway Project, a proposed east-west freeway from east of Mohawk Street to Heath Road. The length of the freeway is approximately eight miles and would be built in phases beginning at the east end of the project. Initial phases would include interchanges at Mohawk Street, Coffee Road and Calloway Drive and terminate at Calloway Drive. This project also includes the construction of a new north-south connection between Rosedale Highway and Truxtun Avenue along Mohawk Street. The length of the Mohawk Street section is approximately 1.2 miles with three lanes in each direction and a raised median.

The Centennial Corridor Project, a proposed connection from SR-58 to I-5 via the Westside Parkway Project.

The widening of:

− SR-178 between Vineland to Miramonte from two lanes to four lanes.

− 24th Street between Oak Street and D Street from 5 lanes (with center turning lane) to six lanes.

− Rosedale Highway between Allen Road and SR-99 from four lanes to six lanes in some locations.

2.2-15 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

The construction of the following interchanges:

− SR-178 at Fairfax Road, which is already under construction and nearing completion.

− SR-178 at Morning Drive.

− Oak Street at 24th Street.

− SR-99 at 7th Standard Road/Merle Haggard Drive with grade separation at the Union Pacific Railroad.

− A flyover of SR-99 that will connect Hageman Road west of SR-99 to Golden State Avenue.

Using TRIP funding along with other sources of funding, including impact fees, grants, and tax revenues, will assist in solving some current and future roadway capacity problems. Grade separations are being proposed for some of the choke points at railway crossings and the proposed improvements to the the roadways are intended to alleviate the pressure of growth and improve and/or maintain the function of the roadway system.

Although many freeway and roadway improvements are proposed there may not be a way to build enough improvements to eliminate congestion. New roads usually provide only temporary relief and sometimes can create new demand. An emphasis should be placed on good quality transit and alternative transportation modes, in accordance with the basic land use principles identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

See also Section 2.1 Land Use Element for further discussion on increased densities and alternative transportation modes.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Roadway Capacity For Existing And Future Traffic? In addition to containing policies that provide development standards for the circulation system and associated street types in Metropolitan Bakersfield, the General Plan Circulation Element contains the following policies which set more specific direction and guide actions for roadway capacity for existing and future traffic and help alleviate traffic congestion.

The list below is not exhaustive. Rather, the policies listed are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to roadway capacity for future and existing traffic. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

APRIL 2009 2.2-16 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Circulation-Streets Policy 5: Place traffic signals to minimize vehicular delay (I-6).

Circulation-Streets Policy 6: Design and locate site access driveways to minimize traffic disruption where possible considering items such as topography, past parcelization and other factors (I-7).

Circulation-Streets Policy 7: Minimize direct and uncontrolled property access from arterials (I-8).

Circulation-Streets Policy 8: Limit full access median breaks on arterials to a maximum of three per mile and include left-turn lanes at each (I-10, I-11).

Circulation-Streets Policy 9: Consider the construction of grade separations for intersections unable to meet minimum level of service standards (I-11).

Circulation-Streets Policy 10: Design local streets to conform to topography. Allow for deviation from "grid" system on local streets when they do not interfere with other traffic policies and traffic flows (I-34).

Circulation-Streets Policy 11: Design local collector street systems to minimize through traffic movements and include short block lengths to discourage excessive speeds (I-34).

Circulation-Streets Policy 33: Provide new transportation facilities as needed based on existing usage and future demand (I-25, I-26, I-27).

Circulation-Streets Policy 34: Minimize the impacts of land use development on the circulation system. Review all development plans, rezoning applications, and proposed general plan amendments with respect to their impact on the transportation system, and require revisions as necessary (I-26).

Circulation-Streets Policy 35: Require new development and expansion of existing development in incorporated areas to fully provide for on-site transportation facilities including streets, curbs, traffic control devices, etc. Within unincorporated areas street improvements will be determined by County Ordinance (I-27, I-29).

Circulation-Streets Policy 36: Prevent streets and intersections from degrading below Level of Service "C" where possible due to physical constraints (as defined in a Level of Service Standard) or when the existing

2.2-17 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Level of Service is below "C" prevent where possible further degradation due to new development or expansion of existing development with a three part mitigation program: adjacent right-of-way dedication, access improvements and/or an area-wide impact fee. The area-wide impact fee would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a later date (I-28, I-29).

Circulation-Streets Policy 37: Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay for necessary access improvements, such as street extensions, widenings, turn lanes, signals, etc., as identified in the transportation impact report as may be required for a project (I-30, I-31, I-32).

Circulation-Streets Policy 39: Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay or participate in its pro rata share of the costs of expansions in area-wide transportation facilities and services which it necessitates (I-32, I-33).

Circulation-Transit Policy 8: Encourage businesses and government to use flexible or staggered work hours so that travel demand is spread more evenly throughout the day (I-6).

Circulation-Transit Policy 11: Work to provide grade separations at all arterial/railroad crossings (I-10).

Challenges Policies refer to an adopted Level of Service Standard that defines degradation of roadways below Level of Service C. However, no Level of Service Standard Ordinance has in fact been adopted.

The policies do not clearly define small infill projects that may be exempted from Level of Service standards.

APRIL 2009 2.2-18 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Additional exemptions to Level of Service standards or street design standards may be appropriate for identified areas of congestion due to physical constraints. However, there are no comprehensive policies addressing this issue.

Existing policies do not provide direction on how to address all the identified physical constraints to the roadway system. Existing policies only address railroad crossings; direction is not provided for the Kern River, freeways, canal crossings, water recharge areas and other physical constraints (including right-of-way availability).

Many of the implementation measures include language that would be more suited for incorporation into the policies.

Many of the policies are redundant and may add to confusion in implementing the circulation system.

Some policies conflict with the land use principles identified in the Land Use Element, including promoting connectivity.

Policies do not provide direction on inconsistencies between City and County development standards.

Polices are not reflective of the goals, objectives and policies of other regional plans such as the Regional Transportation Plan.

Funding limitations to build needed circulation to address planned land uses and future land use amendments needs to be addressed.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Coordinate with the transportation plans of other agencies, particularly the Kern COG Regional Transportation Plan and incorporate goals, objectives and policies as appropriate.

2. Incorporate language from the implementation measures into the policies as appropriate.

3. Remove and/or clarify redundant policies.

4. Plan for additional crossings over the Kern River.

5. Adjust mapping to recognize constraint areas such as Kern Water Bank.

6. Plan for grade separations at congested railway crossings.

7. Discourage development in areas where additional traffic would affect impacted roads or provide alternative routes.

2.2-19 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

8. Require consistency between City and County roadway designs and right-of-way allocations.

9. Require syncronization of all traffic signals, subject to available funding.

10. Promote the use of alternate modes of transportation to help alleviate traffic congestion.

11. Permit deviations from established levels of service to encourage development in designated areas and provide clear definitions of what areas and/or projects qualify for these exemptions.

12. Revise policies to eliminate existing loopholes relative to Level of Service standards as amended.

13. Consider funding sources for development of roadway system and identify feasible improvement projects to accommodate planned land uses.

Issue: Alternate Commuting Options While single-occupant vehicles will likely remain a primary mode of transportation, emphasis on alternative modes of transportation (biking, walking, ridesharing, and public transit) would help to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, which are among the basic principles of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Although alternatives to the private car are available in Metropolitan Bakersfield, only about 5% of Bakersfield workers use a form of transportation other than motor vehicles to commute to work as compared to approximately 10% of workers statewide.

Encouraging alternate commuting options would help implement many of the basic principles of the General Plan, including reducing traffic congestion, promoting pedestrian and bicycle activity, and improved air quality. These basic principles along with increasing bicycle and pedestrian opportunities throughout the planning area were also identified by many of the May 2007 public workshop participants as important to improving the quality of life in Metropolitan Bakersfield.

The basic land use principles in the 2002 General Plan encourage higher densities, infill development, and a mix of uses within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Properly implemented, these principles would make alternate commuting modes of transportation more viable: for example, higher densities with incorporated transit hubs lead to higher rates of transit use and may place more jobs within walking or biking distance of homes.

In addition, Chapter 4 of Kern COG’s Destination 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) summarizes a number of near-term and long-term proposed actions meant to increase the viability of alternate commuting in Kern County, including improving the service of local transit agencies and the acquisition of funding for the expansion of bicycling facilities.

APRIL 2009 2.2-20 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Finally, new state legislation such as Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375 pertaining to reduction of greenhouse gases encourages more compact development and relating transportation planning more closely with land use planning.

See also Section 2.1 Land Use Element for further discussion of increased densities, mixed-use and transit-oriented development and Section 2.3 Conservation Element for further discussion of AB 32 and SB 375 under Climate Change and Sustainability.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Alternate Commuting Options? The Circulation Element includes the following policies pertaining to alternate commuting options.

The list below is not exhaustive. Rather, the policies listed are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Circulation-Streets Policy 21: Route traffic around, rather than through, pedestrian-oriented areas. (I-18)

Circulation-Transit Policy 3: Consider transit service issues in the site plan review process (I-2).

Circulation-Transit Policy 7: Encourage the development of a multi-modal public transportation terminal (I-5).

Circulation-Transit Policy 9: Support efforts to promote ridesharing (I-7).

Circulation-Transit Policy 10: Work with AMTRAK to maintain and improve rail passenger service and facilities in Bakersfield (I-8).

Circulation-Transit Policy 12: Support efforts to develop high-speed rail facilities to service the plan area (I-11).

Circulation-Bikeways Policy 6: Coordinate the Metro Bakersfield Bikeway Master Plan with the regional bicycle system (I-5).

Circulation-Bikeways Policy 7: Provide bicycle parking facilities at activity centers such as shopping centers, employment sites, and public buildings (I- 6).

Circulation-Bikeways Policy 10: Encourage new subdivisions to provide internal bike paths where feasible and where natural features make bike paths desirable (I-2).

2.2-21 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Circulation-Bikeways Policy 11: Construct bike lanes in conjunction with all street improvement projects that coincide with the Bikeway Master Plan (I-3, I-10).

Circulation-Parking Policy 11: Discourage parking between the sidewalk and buildings in pedestrian sensitive areas (I-9).

In addition to the policies contained in the Circulation Element, the General Plan contains goals and policies throughout the document that also address or encourage alternate commuting options, particularly through more compact land use patterns of development as follows:

Land Use Policy 3: Ensure that residential uses are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources (I-1).

Land Use Policy 10: Accommodate high and high-medium density residential adjacent to existing and planned commercial, multi-family, and principal transportation corridors (I-1).

Land Use Policy 39: Enhance existing and establish new centers as the principal focus of development and activity in the planning area, around which other land uses are grouped. Centers should be linked by adequate transportation facilities and may be linked to the Kern River, canals, or other resource amenities. Centers may be differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character (I-1, I-6, I-8).

Challenges The policies refer to “pedestrian-sensitive areas”; however, this term is not defined or identified, making implementation of these policies difficult.

There is a need to encourage people to bike and walk, discouraging unnecessary motor vehicle trips, but little in the way of specific steps to be taken.

Plan for higher densities, pedestrian and transit oriented development that can support the current and planned investment of alternative transportation modes such as bus transit.

Increase the viability of alternate modes of transportation through linking transportation planning and land use patterns, such as more compact development, or transit nodes/corridors.

Policies do not reflect the goals of making the Metropolitan Bakersfield area safe for bicycle and pedestrian travel.

APRIL 2009 2.2-22 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Accessibility of alternate transportation facilities for disabled people, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Continue education of employers and employees on alternate modes of transportation or other methods of travel beyond use of single-occupancy vehicles.

The policies do not address specific types of developments that would encourage alternate transportation modes, such as Transit Oriented Developments.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Include policies and implementing actions designed to encourage alternate modes of transportation such as greater public transit use, thereby broadening commuter options.

2. Include policies and programs from Kern COG’s Destination 2030 RTP specific to alternate transportation modes.

3. Incorporate the actions described in Chapter 4 of Kern COG’s Destination 2030 RTP as implementing measures.

4. Promote pedestrian and bicycle travel through the use of detached sidewalks, trails, landscaping, dedicated right-of-way, building overhangs and weather protection, and safe street crossings.

5. Incorporate pedestrian access into the review of every project to reduce the need for walls around subdivisions, where possible.

6. Encourage mixed-use developments and higher housing densities.

7. Promote a “jobs/housing balance” in community and area plans through land use planning efforts to provide for employment, shopping, services and housing opportunities within close proximity to each other to facilitate the use of alternate modes of transportation.

8. Develop commercial design guidelines that promote the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, convenient transit stops, and incorporate parking management programs such as shared parking facilities.

9. Revise development standards, as appropriate, to provide alternatives to planning for single-occupant motor vehicle exclusively at the expense of bicycling, walking, and public transportation.

Issue: Rail Travel As noted earlier, passenger service via Amtrak is available in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area to destinations throughout California and the US. As of the current day, however, two other forms of rail travel are not available: light rail service to destinations in the Bakersfield area and high speed rail.

2.2-23 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Light Rail Light rail could provide the following advantages:

It is relatively quiet, thus less environmentally obtrusive.

It is electrically propelled, thus less dependant than buses on fuel.

It can operate on existing available rail lines and street medians.

It can be developed a few miles at a time, eliminating long lead times.

Despite these benefits, a 1996 Metropolitan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Study indicated that there would not be enough riders to financially support a light rail system.

Approximately 2,000 passengers per mile are needed to support a light rail system and transportation model projections conducted during the study indicated just 700 passengers per mile by the year 2014. In order for a light rail system to be economically viable in the Metropolitan area residential densities will need to increase significantly. The study instead recommended enhancing bus service through a bus rapid transit system.

High Speed Rail Subsequent to the 1996 Major Transportation Study, the State of California entered into the preliminary engineering/design and environmental review phases for a high-speed rail system that would allow trains to travel at speeds up to 220 miles per hour. The system would connect the major metropolitan areas of northern and southern California, and proposes a main line through the San Joaquin Valley (see Figure 2.2.2-3 Proposed High Speed Rail Line).

The proposed line would generally follow the existing Burlington Northern and Santa Fe rail line, which passes through downtown Bakersfield and is currently used by Amtrak trains. A high speed rail station is planned for Bakersfield, which could significantly increase the number of rail passengers coming to the city and adding to the support for local light rail and other transit systems.

Proposition 1A, the statewide bond measure to fund a portion of the high-speed rail system, was approved by voters in November 2008. A series of environmental scoping meetings will be held along the proposed high-speed rail system corridor to provide public officials and residents a chance to comment on individual sections of the proposed route.

See also Section 2.1 Land Use Element for further discussion of increased densities, mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

APRIL 2009 2.2-24 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.2.2-3 PROPOSED HIGH SPEED RAIL LINE

2.2-25 APRIL 2009 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Rail Travel? The General Plan Circulation Element contains the following policies to address rail travel throughout the Metropolitan area.

The list below is not exhaustive. Rather, the policies listed are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Circulation-Transit Policy 7: Encourage the development of a multi-modal public transportation terminal (I-5).

Circulation-Transit Policy 10: Work with AMTRAK to maintain and improve rail passenger service and facilities in Bakersfield (I-8).

Circulation-Transit Policy 11: Work to provide grade separations at all arterial/railroad crossings (I-10).

Circulation-Transit Policy 12: Support efforts to develop high-speed rail facilities to service the plan area (I-11).

In addition to the policies contained in the Circulation Element, the General Plan contains goals and policies throughout the document that also address rail travel through the increase of residential densities thereby increasing the viability of rail as follows:

Land Use Policy 10: Accommodate high and high-medium density residential adjacent to existing and planned commercial, multi-family, and principal transportation corridors (I-1).

Challenges The General Plan identifies support for high speed rail; however, there has been no incorporation of a potential high speed rail station location or additional policies to support connections between a future rail station and other transportation options.

The policies refer to establishing a multi-modal transportation terminal yet no direction is provided on where preferred locations may be located.

APRIL 2009 2.2-26 2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Include policies and implementing measures designed to encourage rail transportation, particularly for longer pleasure trips and commuter trips to Fresno, Los Angeles, and other employment centers.

2. Identify a proposed location for a multi-modal transportation terminal.

3. Identify the proposed location for the high speed rail station or multi-modal station to accommodate high speed rail and other modes of transportation.

4. Incorporate policies that support the proposed high speed rail system, encouraging public transportation links to the station, and promoting transit-oriented residential development with densities that could make the establishment of a high speed rail station viable.

5. Include policies to encourage connections between the high speed rail line and other modes of transportation, such as bus and Amtrak services.

2.2-27 APRIL 2009

2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

The Conservation Element provides for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources.

2.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides goals and policies to direct the conservation of five focus areas:

Biological Resources,

Mineral Resources,

Soils and Agriculture,

Water Resources, and

Air Quality

The following are brief overviews of these focus areas as discussed in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Biological Resources Originally, the Metropolitan Bakersfield area was a region of broad arid plains, often with an extensive cover of saltbush.

By the 1860’s, most of the valley’s broad plains were owned by resident sheepmen. Grazing was severe, especially in time of drought, and the effect on plant cover was substantial.

Irrigation developed rapidly in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area in the late 1880's and large areas were converted to farmlands.

In the period since 1900, the oil and gas industry has developed rapidly in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, spurring the growth of the City of Bakersfield and the surrounding areas into the metropolitan area of today.

As a result of the past 140 years of human activity, the plant and animal communities that now exist within the region are either highly modified (but still recognizable) remnants of native communities or have been almost completely altered from their former state.

Construction of Isabella Dam on the Kern River, together with groundwater pumping in the region, has severely lowered the water table. Consequently, very little river water reaches the main valley area to support wetland habitats. However, the Kern River still supports areas of streambank vegetation.

2.3-1 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Grasslands and scrublands once covered virtually the entire Metropolitan Bakersfield area. These areas, seemingly poor in plant species diversity and wildlife abundance, are nonetheless the primary base for an intricate food chain which ultimately supports a great diversity of animal life from insects to small birds and mammals to predators such as hawks, falcons, harriers, coyote, and fox.

Localized depressions where rainwater collects often harbor a great profusion of unusual and sometimes unique plant life. The presence of remnants of marshes, wetlands, riparian areas and man-created open water habitats further enhances the biological diversity of the area and provides for an abundance of waterfowl, fishes and aquatic organisms in an otherwise desert-like environment.

Although alteration and disruption to the biological environment has occurred as a result of development, the area still retains significant plant and animal communities, some of which are considered sensitive by virtue of their uniqueness or rarity, others by virtue of their recent decline to the point which their existence may be threatened.

Mineral Resources The principal mineral resources in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are oil, natural gas, sand and gravel (see Figure 2.3.1-1 Known Mineral Resources).

The Bakersfield region is a major oil-producing area, with substantial oil and gas fields—the Kern River oil field that lies partially under the Bakersfield Metropolitan area is the fourth largest oil field in the lower 48 states. Oil and gas production provides many jobs and is very important to the local economy.

Sand and gravel areas are concentrated primarily along the floodplain and alluvial fan of the Kern River, where these clean, coarse deposits have been left by major floods over the past several thousand years. Sand and gravel are an important resource for construction, development, improvements and physical maintenance, from highways and bridges to swimming pools and playgrounds.

In conformance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), land use decisions in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that may affect mineral-bearing lands must take into account these resources. Detailed mineral land classification and designation reports provided by the State Mining and Geology Board are on file with the City of Bakersfield and Kern County.

Soils and Agriculture In addition to the mineral resources within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, agriculture has been extensive since the introduction of livestock in the 1860s. Livestock raising on large land grants and some production of grain under dry-farming methods were the chief agricultural pursuits until about 1880. Rapid agricultural development occurred after 1880 due to the development of irrigation, low land prices, favorable crop yields, the advent of two railroads, the development of the petroleum industry, and access to markets.

APRIL 2009 2.3-2 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.3.1-1 KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCES

2.3-3 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Bakersfield’s climate, availability of water, dependable market demand and good soils combine to create high agricultural production. Crops such as cotton, alfalfa, milo, wheat and barley, plums, peaches, apricots, citrus, grapes, nuts, truck crops, potatoes and other vegetables are grown in the area.

However, the American Farmland Trust predicts that if the land use trends of the 1990s continue and population forecasts are accurate, the Central Valley can expect to lose another 882,000 acres of farmland to urbanization and ranchette development by the year 2040 (as of 2000, about 12-million acres of land in the Central Valley were used for agriculture).

The projected loss of farmland if current trends continue will reduce the agricultural production capacity of the Valley. Using conservative assumptions, the American Farmland Trust estimates that the annual value of production capacity permanently lost to development will reach $814 million by the year 2040. Urban land use conflicts could have the potential to reduce production even more.

Prime agricultural land is an important and limited resource that warrants conservation in and around the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (see Figure 2.3.1-2 Prime Agricultural Lands). It is important that an effective and uniform process be utilized to evaluate the conversion of designated agricultural lands within the plan area to non-agricultural use. Non-agricultural uses should be encouraged in less desirable soils where agricultural conflicts are minimized.

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is a program available to encourage conservation of agricultural land and many properties in the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area are currently under a Williamson Act Contract (see Figure 2.3.1-3 Williamson Act Properties) The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use under a rolling 10-year contract. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. However, the Williamson Act is a voluntary program entered into by landowners and therefore, landowners may choose to remove their properties from the program through non-renewal or cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. The program may also be susceptible to state funding availability for reimbursement of the difference in property tax revenues to local governments.

APRIL 2009 2.3-4 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.3.1-2 PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS

2.3-5 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.3.1-3 WILLIAMSON ACT PROPERTIES

APRIL 2009 2.3-6 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Water Resources Refer to Section 2.7.1 Public Services and Facilities Element Existing Conditions – Water discussion for information about water supply and distribution.

Air Quality Air Quality in the Central Valley is a major concern. The Central Valley has some of the nation’s worst air quality—air in the Bakersfield area is federally classified as extreme non- attainment for the federal 1-hr ground-level ozone, serious non-attainment for the federal 8- hr ground-level ozone, serious non-attainment for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard, and non-attainment for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) standard. Air in the Central Valley is classified as “severe non- attainment” for the California ozone standard and “non-attainment” for the state’s PM10 standard.

Air quality in the Bakersfield is bad for several reasons, among which are high temperatures and abundant sunshine (which help “cook” pollutants and create ozone) and topography. The mountain ranges which surround the valley on three sides are high enough to trap polluted air in the basin and help create inversion layers that trap bad air close to the ground.

During the winter months there are higher concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and particulates, as well as tule fog, magnifying these poor air quality conditions. Defoliants used in agricultural practices also contribute to poor air quality. During the summer and fall months there is a greater build-up of ozone, which persists due to stagnation of this regional air mass.

Since 1980, when air programs in the San Joaquin Valley began to take shape, the Valley has continually made progress towards better air quality. There have been reductions in emissions from stationary sources by 80%, and total emissions have been reduced by nearly 60%. The number of days and the magnitude by which the Valley exceeds the health-based standards have been reduced dramatically.

However, given the enormity of challenges such as topography, growth above the state’s average and goods movement, achieving cleaner air requires continued focus on all sources of emissions and participation by all entities and individuals throughout the Valley.

2.3.2 ISSUES Specific issues have been identified that inhibit implementation of the Conservation goals for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and need to be further addressed by the General Plan Update. These issues were derived from public input received through the May 2007 Phase I Town Hall Meetings and various surveys conducted in conjunction with the KernCOG Regional Blueprint process and from input received through discussions with City of Bakersfield and Kern County staff. Comments received were consolidated into the following primary issues, as discussed further in this section:

2.3-7 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Scenic Corridors

Mineral Resources

Agriculture

Air Quality

Climate Change and Sustainability

Water quality is discussed in Section 2.7 Public Services and Facilties of this report.

An evaluation of each issue relative to the existing General Plan policies was conducted and specific challenges were identified. These challenges must be addressed through the General Plan Update process to better achieve the City and County’s vision for the General Plan Conservation Element. Recommendations for changes to the General Plan are provided.

Issue: Scenic Corridors and Biological Resources Scenic Corridors The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan is based on two basic land use principles:

Focusing new development into distinctive centers which are separated by low land use densities; and,

Siting development to take advantage of the environmental setting.

These principles are defined in the 2002 General Plan as the "Centers" and "Resource" concepts, respectively. As discussed in Section 2.1 Land Use Element, the Centers concept will be revised to reflect the creation of activity centers at the Neighborhood and Regional level, in accordance with the Building Blocks concept. However, the intent of the basic land use principles remains the same, which encourages people to live and work in the same area, thus, serves to minimize sprawl and reduce traffic, travel time, infrastructure costs, and air pollution.

The Resources concept, also discussed in Section 2.1 Land Use Element, emphasizes the siting of development to reflect the planning area’s natural and visual resources; its river, canals, and foothills.

The consideration of viewsheds is also an issue that is addressed in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Consideration is given to the impacts that development may have on viewsheds and amenities such as the Kern River, bluffs and foothills.

The Kern River Parkway is the predominate scenic corridor within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The foothills in the northeast portion of the planning area are also considered a scenic resource (see Figure 2.3.2-1 Kern River and Foothills). The Kern

APRIL 2009 2.3-8 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

River Specific Trails Plan, 2003, is Kern County’s adopted plan for trials and the Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Master Plan, 2007, is the city’s adopted plan for recreation, parks and trails. Both plans serve in the planning of natural and visual resource areas,

Biological Resources The City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern have established a conservation planning approach through the formation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The MBHCP, using a mitigation fee paid by applicants for grading and building permits, purchases and maintains habitat land to compensate for the effect of urban development on endangered species habitat. Most lands are purchased outside the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area boundary; however the fee collected through the MBHCP does go toward purchase of property in the planning area boundary as well. Therefore, while the MBHCP is not intended as a scenic strategy, it indirectly protects natural features within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area as identified by the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. These natural features, such as the Kern River and the foothills, not only serve as scenic resources but as wildlife corridors. However, the MBHCP expires in 2014 and if not extended, each development project will have to negotiate individually with United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

The conceptual focus areas as identified in the MBHCP include the foothills located in northeast portion of the planning area and the City of Bakersfield water recharge area located in the southwest portion of the planning area. These areas, along with the Kern River, could serve as potential wildlife corridors for the San Joaquin kit fox, which is listed as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act.

While the presence of special-status species or habitat would be a potential impediment to development, it also may provide an opportunity to designate such areas for open space, which would provide aesthetic and educational value.

2.3-9 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.3.2-1 KERN RIVER AND FOOTHILLS

APRIL 2009 2.3-10 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Scenic Corridors And Biological Resources? In addition to containing general policies in relation to scenic corridors and biological resources within Metropolitan Bakersfield, the General Plan Conservation Element contains the following policies which set more specific direction and guide actions for conservation of scenic corridors and biological resources.

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to scenic corridors and biological resources. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Conservation-Biological Policy 1: Direct development away from "sensitive biological resource" areas, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented (I-1, I-3, I-4).

Conservation-Biological Policy 2: Preserve areas of riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat within floodways along rivers and streams, in accordance with the Kern River Plan Element and channel maintenance programs designed to maintain flood flow discharge capacity (I-4).

Conservation-Biological Policy 3: Discourage, where appropriate, the use of off-road vehicles to protect designated sensitive biological and natural resources (I-2).

Conservation-Biological Policy 4: Determine the feasibility of enhancing sensitive biological habitat and establishing additional wildlife habitat in the study area with State and/or Federal assistance (I-3).

Conservation-Biological Policy 5: Determine the locations and extent of suitable habitat areas required for the effective conservation management of designated "sensitive" plant and animal species (I-3).

Conservation-Biological Policy 6: Investigate the feasibility of including natural areas selected for the habitat conservation plan as a component of the regional park system (I-3).

The General Plan also contains goals and policies throughout other elements of the document that address or contribute to conservation of scenic resources and biological resources as follows:

2.3-11 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Open Space Policy 1: Promote the establishment, maintenance and protection of the planning area’s open space resources, including the following (I-1) (I-2) (I-3)

a. Conservation of natural resources

i. Kern River corridor

ii. Management of hillsides

Open Space Policy 2: Development of ridge lines within the planning area should consider natural topographic constraints. (I-2)

Open Space Policy 3: Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be complementary to the natural topography. (I-2)

Open Space Policy 4: Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of natural topography and ridge lines. (I-2)

Land Use Policy 39: Centers should be linked by adequate transportation facilities and may be linked to the Kern River, canals, or other resource amenities. Centers may be differentiated by functional activity, density/intensity, and physical character (I-1, I-6, I-8).

Land Use Policy 45: Allow for the development of a center in southwest Bakersfield which is a focal point of activity and includes a mix of professional office and retail uses, moderate density residential, and filters outwards to lower suburban-type densities, according to the following principles (I-1):

a. Encourage focus on an open space amenity such as a park or water body;

b. Provide opportunity for the development of residential units above ground floor commercial;

c. Encourage land use link with the Kern River and promote pedestrian activity within center.

APRIL 2009 2.3-12 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

residential, and filtering outwards to lower densities, according to the following principles (I-1, I-6, I-8).

a Attempt to focus on open space amenities;

b. Cluster development to take advantage of views;

c. Encourage development to preserve public views of foothill topography and sensitive habitats;

d. Provide the opportunity for the development of residential units above ground floor commercial;

e. Promote pedestrian activity and use of greenbelt links between land uses.

Challenges The General Plan policies do not define “sensitive biological resource.”

There is no figure identifying existing or potential scenic resources in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, which makes it difficult to implement any policies related to protection of those resources.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Define ”sensitive biological resource”

2. Identify and define ”scenic resources” and provide a map(s) of existing or potential scenic resources in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

3. Incorporate policies to designate additional areas as potential wildlife habitiat or scenic corridors and provide for protection from encroaching development.

4. Identify areas of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle linkages to scenic resources.

Issue: Mineral Resources Protection of valuable mineral and energy resources is a basic principle of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Preservation of oil resources was also identified by the participants of the May 2007 public workshops as an issue of importance.

However, the continued growth within Metropolitan Bakersfield may result in resources being lost when incompatible urban encroachment is allowed into areas of current and potential resource extraction. This is particularly important as much of the new residential development in the area is occurring in areas which have known oil or gas resources.

2.3-13 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

As Metropolitan Bakersfield continues to expand, there will be many obstacles to overcome to maintain and preserve mineral resources. These include:

Compatibility with encroaching urban uses (including noise, smells, and visual impacts);

Preservation of existing and potential mineral resource extraction sites to ensure long-term availability of these economically important resources;

Protecting the public health, safety and welfare due to mineral extraction;

Reducing environmental impacts to land, water and air quality resources as well as undesirable visual impacts; and,

Conflicts between surface and mineral interests in the provision of drilling islands.

The 2002 General Plan basic land use principles for new urban areas and development in peripheral areas do not require that new development be constructed with buffers or setbacks adjacent to mineral resource land uses, although local ordinances thoroughly address these issues.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Mineral Resources? In addition to containing policies that provide for the conservation of mineral resources in Metropolitan Bakersfield, the General Plan Conservation Element contains the following policies which set more specific direction and guide actions for the conservation of mineral resources.

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to mineral resources. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Conservation-Minerals Policy 2: Document the location, status, and long-term viability of sand and gravel quarries and petroleum drilling sites for purposes of avoiding near and long-term land use conflicts and provide a basis for compliance monitoring (I- 1).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 4: Land use decisions shall recognize the importance of identified mineral resources and need for conservation of resources identified by the State Mining and Geology Board (I-2).

APRIL 2009 2.3-14 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Conservation-Minerals Policy 5: Protect significant mineral and petroleum resource areas, including potential sand and gravel extraction areas (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 6: Continue implementation of the Kern River Channel Maintenance Program for extraction of river sand and gravel (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 7: Promote development of compatible uses adjacent to mineral extraction areas (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 8: Allow development of resource extraction sites subject to the conditional use permit procedure in zones where such uses are not permitted by right and where it can be shown that proposed extraction uses are compatible with surrounding uses (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 9: Encourage preservation of any known deposits of gemstones and fossils (I-1).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 10: Implement, as appropriate, the California Environmental Quality Act to minimize land use conflicts and reduce environmental impacts of all proposed resource extraction operations (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 11: Prohibit incompatible development in areas which have a significant potential for harm to public health, safety and welfare due to mineral and petroleum extraction and processing (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 12: Design resource extraction operations subject to discretionary permits to maintain the integrity of areas of "high environmental quality" and unique scenic value (I-2).

Conservation-Minerals Policy 15: Require petroleum production sites in urban areas which are subject to discretionary permits, to install peripheral landscaping to help reduce the noise, dust and visual impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors and public ways (I-4).

2.3-15 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Challenges Policies and implementing programs provide for the use of Drilling Islands and setbacks to address compatibility issues between land uses yet sometimes conflicts arise

Minimal direction is provided as to how to preserve and protect land in and around mineral resource extraction sites, particularly from encroaching development.

Policies give vague guidance as to how to minimize environmental impacts.

There are inconsistencies between City and County regulations regarding drilling.

There is no discussion on alternative ways to drill (i.e. slant or directional drilling or consideration of cluster drilling activities) to minimize impacts.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Continue to protect areas of known importance for mineral resources.

2. Place setbacks, open space, park buffers, or agricultural buffers between urban uses and the energy resource producers, reducing the potential conflicts of urban land uses.

3. Require visual screening of mineral resource and sand and gravel extraction operations.

4. Place similar land uses such as industrial adjacent to the energy producing land uses.

5. Allow for alternative drilling techniques such as clustered, slant or directional drilling operations to reduce amount of land affected by drilling operations.

Agriculture Conservation of prime agricultural land is a basic principle of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Further, preservation of agricultural lands was identified by the participants of the May 2007 public workshops as an issue of importance. While cumulative agricultural land conversion is being addressed with compensatory lands at a 1:1 ratio, low density sprawl and development pressures from increasing urban expansion continue to be the major contributing factors to the conversion of prime agricultural lands within Metropolitan Bakersfield.

As Metropolitan Bakersfield continues to expand there will be many obstacles to overcome to conserve agricultural lands. These include:

Compatibility with neighboring uses including noise, dust, odors, and visual impacts;

APRIL 2009 2.3-16 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Preservation of existing and potential agricultural land; and,

Protection from incompatible urban encroachment.

The 2002 General Plan basic land use principles for new urban areas and development in peripheral areas provide no direction for new development to be constructed with buffers or setbacks adjacent to continuing agricultural uses.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Agriculture? In addition to containing policies that address agriculture in Metropolitan Bakersfield, the General Plan Conservation Element contains the following policies which set more specific direction and guide actions for agricultural uses.

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to agriculture. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Conservation-Ag Policy 2: Review projects that propose subdividing or urbanizing prime agricultural land to ascertain how continued commercial agricultural production in the project vicinity will be affected (I-2).

Conservation-Ag Policy 3: Protect areas designated for agricultural use, which include Class I and II agricultural soils having surface delivery water systems, from the encroachment of residential and commercial subdivision development activities (I-2).

Conservation-Ag Policy 9: Protect prime agricultural lands against unplanned urban development by adopting agricultural zoning, agricultural land use designations, and by encouraging use of the Williamson Act and the Farmland Security Zone Program and policies that provide tax and economic incentives to ensure the long-term retention of agricultural lands (I-5).

Conservation-Ag Policy 14: When considering proposals to convert designated agricultural lands to non-agricultural use, the decision making body of the City and County shall evaluate the following factors to determine the appropriateness of the proposal:

a. Soil quality

2.3-17 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

b. Availability of irrigation water

c. Proximity to non-agricultural uses

d. Proximity to intensive parcelization

e. Effect on properties subject to “Williamson Act” land use

f. Ability to be provided with urban services (sewer, water, roads, etc.)

g. Ability to affect the application of agricultural chemicals on nearby agricultural properties

h. Ability to create a precedent-setting situation that leads to the premature conversion of prime agricultural lands

i. Demonstrated project need

Conservation-Ag Policy 16: Future development which involves in-fill of the urban area as opposed to development on the urban fringes shall be encouraged. (County Policy)

Challenges Prime agricultural land isn’t identified in the General Plan, making it difficult to preserve during entitlement review.

Policies provide little direction on how to protect agricultural lands, particularly from encroaching development.

Many policies are redundant.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Establish a uniform land use conversion review process to ensure that consistent factors are considered in evaluating agricultural conversions.

2. Discourage the establishment of high concentrations of livestock in Metropolitan Bakersfield.

3. Encourage higher densities in existing developed areas to minimize the land needed to accommodate projected growth.

4. Consider establishing a mechanism for the purchase and protection of agricultural lands. This may include purchase of conservation easements,

APRIL 2009 2.3-18 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

purchase of credits from a mitigation bank, contribution of agricultural land for preservation, or particiaption in agricultural land mitigation program adopted in Kern County.

5. Consider designating lands next to the agricultural buffer for industrial uses, which in general are more compatible with agricultural land uses.

6. Discourage prematurely converting lands under Williamson Act contracts until Notice of non-renewal period is complete.

7. Continue to encourage development in northeast Bakersfield on less viable agricultural land.

Issue: Air Quality As noted earlier in this section, air quality in the Bakersfield area has improved over the years as the result of efforts to reduce pollutants, but air quality is still not good and frequently violates state and federal standards.

Exposure to increased levels of air pollutants can adversely impact human health resulting in increased rates of asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart irregularities, and death. Poor air quality can also result in decreased visibility, damage to plants and structures, and decreased crop yield.

In addition to pollution, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in the SJVAB. Common sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust, particularly exhaust from diesel- fueled engines.

Other major sources of TACs in the Bakersfield Metro area include stationary sources, such as Consolidated Fiberglass and Kern Oil and Refining Company; and mobile sources, including the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) Railyard and vehicle traffic on major highways (SJVAPCD 2006).

Other air quality issues of concern to residents include nuisance impacts of odors and dust as well as agricultural chemical spray drift where agricultural land interfaces with urban development. Localized mobile-source concentrations of carbon monoxide are also of potential concern, particularly in areas surrounding congested roadways and intersections. (Refer to Section 2.3. Conservation Element – Climate Change and Sustainability)

Many factors contribute to poor air quality, such as traffic congestion and poor circulation/transportation. Actions that will help improve air quality include:

Implementing the Building Blocks and resources concepts (refer to Section 2.1 of this report);

2.3-19 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Encouraging and implementing mixed use development (refer to Section 2.1 of this report); and,

Promoting the use of alternate modes of transportation (refer to Section 2.2 of this report);

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Air Quality? Due to the range of influences on air quality, many of the policies contained throughout the General Plan would help improve air quality in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The following sections of this report identify many of these policies:

Section 2.1 Land Use Element – Infill Development and Redevelopment

Section 2.1 Land Use Element – Mixed-Use Development

Section 2.2 Circulation Element – Alternate Commuting Options

Section 2.3 Conservation Element – Climate Change and Sustainability

In addition to policies identified in the above-referenced sections, the Conservation Element includes the following policies focused on air quality.

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to air quality. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 1: Comply with and promote San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) control measures regarding Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Such measures are focused on: (a) steam driven well vents, (b) Pseudo-cyclic wells, (c) natural gas processing plant fugitives, (d) heavy oil test stations, (e) light oil production fugitives, (f) refinery pumps and compressors, and (g) vehicle inspection and maintenance (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 3: Require dust abatement measures during significant grading and construction operations (I-1).

APRIL 2009 2.3-20 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 4: Consider air pollution impacts when evaluating discretionary permits for land use proposals. Considerations should include (I-1):

a. Alternative access routes to reduce traffic congestion.

b. Development phasing to match road capacities.

c. Buffers including increase vegetation to increase emission dispersion and reduce impacts of gaseous or particulate matter on sensitive uses.

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 5: Consider the location of sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, and housing developments when locating industrial uses to minimize the impact of industrial sources of air pollution (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 6: Participate in alternative fuel programs (I-2).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 13: Consider establishing priority parking areas for carpoolers in projects with relatively large numbers of employees to reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve air quality (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 14: Establish park and ride facilities to encourage carpooling and the use of mass transit (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 15: Promote the use of bicycles by providing attractive bicycle paths and requiring provision of storage facilities in commercial and industrial projects (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 17: Continue to participate with the vehicle smog-check and maintenance programs (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 20: Provide the opportunity for the development of residential units in concert with commercial uses (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 21: Disperse urban service centers (libraries, post offices, social services, etc.) to minimize vehicle trips and trip miles traveled and concomitant air pollutants (I-1).

2.3-21 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 22: Require the provision of secure, convenient bike storage racks at shopping centers, office buildings, and other places of employment in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 23: Encourage the provision of shower and locker facilities by employers, for employees who bicycle or jog to work (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 24: Encourage employers to implement programs for staggered work hours, compressed work weeks, or other measures which relieve vehicle congestion during commute periods and reduce total work trips (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 25: Require design of parking structures and ramps to provide adequate off-street storage for entering vehicles to minimize on-street congestion and avoid internal back-up and idling of vehicles (I-1).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 28: Encourage the use of "teleconferencing" and other state-of-the-art technology as a means of reducing daily business related traffic (I-4).

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 29: Encourage the use of alternative fuel and low or zero emission vehicles (I-5, I-6)

Conservation-Air Quality Policy 31: Encourage agricultural burn alternatives (I-1).

Challenges The policies do not incorporate the goals and policies of the Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans.

The General Plan does not incorporate policies that address odor.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Identify existing and potential future sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and coordinate figures and policies to provide increased buffers between these sources and future sensitive land uses.

2. Enhance existing goals and policies to be consistent with the recommendations contained in the Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans, Assembly Bill 170.

APRIL 2009 2.3-22 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

3. Consider policies such as those discouraging development in areas where major stationary sources of TACs are known or are anticipated to occur.

4. Identify existing and potential future sources of odors, dust, and agricultural use of pesticides and coordinate figures and policies to provide increased buffers between these sources and future sensitive land uses.

5. Consider policies to discourage the development of sensitive land uses in areas near where major odor sources are known or are anticipated to occur, such as wastewater treatment plants.

6. Coordinate the preparation and use of land use diagrams and policies with applicable transportation and congestion management plans and programs in an effort to minimize congestion on area roadways.

Issue: Climate Change and Sustainability Climate change has become an issue of concern in California. There is general scientific consensus that the overall global temperature has increased, and that the emission of greenhouse gases generated by human activities may be a primary factor in this change.

The impacts of a continued increase in global temperature in California, while they may vary locally, are generally considered to be an increase in daily temperatures, potential changes in the amount and type of precipitation, and a reduction in the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. The consequences of these impacts on the Metropolitan Bakersfield area may include the following:

Reduction in available water resources,

Increased levels of ozone (due to warmer days),

Increased public health hazards associated with heat, and

Lower agricultural yields due to higher temperatures, poorer air quality, less available water, and greater number of pests

These issues should be addressed through the General Plan update in order to position Metropolitan Bakersfield to be able to adequately respond to potential future requirements associated with climate change and related state legislation.

Assembly Bill 32 In 2006, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32. AB 32 establishes a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by the year 2020. To attain that goal, AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a plan by January 1, 2009 indicating how emission reductions will be achieved. Reductions may be achieved by regulations, market mechanisms and other actions. By January 1, 2011, the

2.3-23 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

ARB must adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Growth anticipated in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area would lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through increased vehicle traffic and industrial activities. Growth would also indirectly lead to greater emissions through an increase in the consumption of energy, which would be supplied by power plants and oil refineries that generate greenhouse gases in their production processes.

In February 2008, the Attorney General of the State of California raised concerns about global warming impacts at the local agency level. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies have a very important role to play in California’s fight against global warming. The Attorney General’s report identified ways that local agencies could incorporate policy and implementation measures to reduce impacts of global warming.

Although AB 32 is establishing goals for the reduction of climate impacts, there is currently no set standard for determining climate change impacts or how to measure the improvements other than to focus on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improving air quality.

Senate Bill 375 As a follow-up to AB 32, the California legislature passed SB 375 in October 2008 that is a comprehensive global warming bill focusing on housing and transportation planning decisions. The goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption and conserve farmlands and habitat. SB 375 is vitally important to achieving the goals identified in AB 32 because greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use are the single largest sector of emissions in California.

SB 375 identifies the “how” and “when” for achieving the goals established under AB 32 by requiring Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), in this case KernCOG, to establish a Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that seeks to achieve the targeted reductions in GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, as determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for each region. The SCS is part of the RTP and therefore, is linked to transportation funding related to the RTP process.

In the case where the SCS is shown that it cannot meet the GHG emission reduction targets, then KernCOG must develop an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS). The APS would identify alternative measures and policies for meeting the reduction targets and describe why these alternatives are the most practicable choices for achieving the targets. The APS is not part of the RTP.

SB 375 also provides incentives to locate housing developments closer to where people work and go to school, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) every year. One such incentive is to allow qualifying projects to pass through a streamlined environmental review

APRIL 2009 2.3-24 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Qualifying projects must meet certain criteria to allow for streamline environmental review, including:

1) Project must contain at least 50% residential use. Commercial use, if any, must have a floor area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75.

2) Project must have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre.

3) Project must be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor included in a RTP.

SB 375 further identifies varying levels of streamlined CEQA review. For a qualifying project to qualify for a total exemption from CEQA, there are a number of additional criteria that the project must meet, including:

Project must nor be more than 8 acres in size or 200 residential units;

Project can be served by existing utilities;

Project does not have a significant environmental effect on historical resources;

Building are 15% more energy efficient than required and building and landscaping is designed to achieve 25% less water usage; and,

Project provides either:

− A minimum of 5 acres per 1,000 residents of open space, or 20% housing for moderate income; or,

− 10% housing for low income, or 5% housing for very low income (or in-lieu fees sufficient to result in the development of an equivalent amount of units).

SB 375 also identifies additional criteria for partial CEQA exemptions. These incentives were developed to encourage participation in the goals of SB 375 and the required SCS. The overall intent of the bill remains to be more closely relating transportation and land use planning to achieve the target reduction in GHG emissions.

Climate change and sustainability were not identified in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, however; the General Plan identifies basic principles that support these topics such as:

Reducing the “heat island effect”;

The use of alternate modes of transportation (refer to Section 2.2 of this report); and,

2.3-25 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Continuing the reduction of vehicle emissions and improvement of air quality.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Climate Change And Sustainability? Due to the range of influences on climate change, many of the policies contained throughout the General Plan address climate change in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The following sections of this report identify many of these policies:

Section 2.2 Circulation Element – Alternate Commuting Options

Section 2.3 Conservation Element – Air Quality

In addition to policies identified in the above-referenced sections, the Land Use Element and the Conservation Element include the following policies focused on climate change.

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to climate change. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Land Use Policy 99: Develop a plan to ensure that all parking lots are 40 percent shaded at maturity to help alleviate “heat island effect.” (I-16)

Land Use Policy 100: Encourage the use of reflective roofing material and other measures that reduce the “heat island effect.” (I-8).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 2: Encourage land uses and land use practices which do not contribute significantly to air quality degradation (I-1).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 7: Participate in regional air quality studies and comprehensive programs for air pollution reduction (I-3).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 8: Promote and assist in the development and implementation of the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Quality Study (I-3).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 12: Encourage the use of mass transit, carpooling and other transportation options to reduce vehicle miles traveled (I-4).

APRIL 2009 2.3-26 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 16: Cooperate with Golden Empire Transit and Kern Regional Transit to provide a comprehensive mass transit system for Bakersfield; require large-scale new development to provide related improvements, such as bus stop shelters and turnouts (I-1).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 18: Encourage walking for short distance trips through the creation of pedestrian friendly sidewalks and street crossings (I-1).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 19: Promote a pattern of land uses which locates residential uses in close proximity to employment and commercial services to minimize vehicular travel (I-1).

Conservation–Air Quality Policy 30: Encourage local officials to advocate safe incentives for biomass plants to divert agricultural waste and reduce agricultural burns (I-1).

Challenges Policies do not incorporate “green” practices, including energy conservation measures and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

No measures are included that encourage development of alternative energies, such as solar or wind power.

Work closely with oil, natural gas and electricity producers to create standards and policies for using solar, geothermal and wind energy resources.

Educate residents on climate change and sustainability practices.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate or strengthen policies that incorporate ”green” practices including energy conservation, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and use of alternative energy sources.

2. Incorporate policies that would permit qulaifying projects to take advantage of the streamlined CEQA process under SB 375.

3. Encourage the use of rail, bus and modes of transportation other than automobiles to reduce automobile trips, thereby reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

2.3-27 APRIL 2009 2.3 CONSERVATION ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

4. Encourage the construction of “green” buildings, defined as buildings certified by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program or other ”green” building certification program.

5. Incorporate water conservation and efficiency measures, which would reduce potential future adverse impacts of climate change on water supplies.

6. Promote the creation of “green” jobs and businesses that have a reduced impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Integrate recovery of by-product methane from area dairies and other potential sources such as landfills.

8. Promote mixed-use, infill and more compact development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.

9. Encourage development of a comprehensive climate change action strategy and implementation program for the Metropolitan area.

10. Incoporate a requirement that all new government buildings, and all major renovations and additions, meet identified green building standards.

11. Strengthen local building codes for new construction and renovation to require a higher level of energy efficiency, exceeding Title 24 requirements.

12. Encourage use of alternative engery sources such as solar.

13. Establish an agressive tree preservation and planting policy.

APRIL 2009 2.3-28 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

The Parks and Open Space Element details how open space, recreational areas and natural resource areas will be preserved and managed. 2.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan addresses Parks and Open Space in two separate elements. It is proposed that these two elements be combined under one comprehensive Parks and Open Space Element as part of the General Plan Update. Therefore, the following is a brief overview of both the Parks and Open space elements of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Parks Parks are generally categorized as either “local” or “regional” in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Local parks generally range from 1 to 2.5 acres for mini-parks, 5- 10 acres for neighborhood parks, and approximately 30 acres for community parks. Regional parks, on the other hand, can range anywhere from 20 to 1,000 acres and may serve a population living within a one–hour drive (about 50 miles).

Historically, park facilities in the planning area have been provided by the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, the North of the River Recreation and Park District (NORRPD), Bear Mountain Recreation and Park District, school districts, colleges, and, most recently, private developers. Regional parks have been the responsibility of Kern County.

The City of Bakersfield and Kern County operate regional, community and neighborhood parks and trails, along with community centers and other recreational facilities. The park system under the jurisdiction of the City of Bakersfield includes more than 50 parks, recreation facilities and trails such as the Kern River Parkway (see Figure 2.4.1-1 Existing Parks in Metropolitan Bakersfield, below, and Table 2.4.1-1 Existing Parks in Metropolitan Bakersfield, located at the end of this chapter, for a listing of all parks in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area). The NORRPD operates numerous park facilities, as well as year–round recreational programs, and encompasses just under one-quarter of the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. Kern County is currently preparing a Master Plan to address the improvement and management of parks in the unincorporated area.

Open Space The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identifies “open space” as any lands that serve the following purpose:

Preserve natural resources,

Manage production of resources,

Provide outdoor recreation, or,

Serve public health and safety

2.4-1 APRIL 2009 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.4.1-1 EXISTING PARKS

APRIL 2009 2.4-2 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Under this broad definition, the topic of open space is addressed in several General Plan elements, including Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Parks and Safety. The Open Space Element deals only with the following open space issues, which are not covered in other elements:

Trails

Public parks

2.4.2 ISSUES In order to make better use of existing parks and open space features as well as create a more cohesive system of open space amenities, the General Plan’s goals and policies of the General Plan should be clear and concise.

Specific issues have been identified that inhibit implementation of the Parks and Open Space goals for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and need to be further addressed by the General Plan Update. These issues were derived from public input received through the May 2007 Phase I Town Hall Meetings and various surveys conducted in conjunction with the KernCOG Regional Blueprint process and from input received through discussions with City of Bakersfield and Kern County staff. Comments received were consolidated into the following issues, which are discussed in this section:

Parks and Open Space

Trails

An evaluation of each issue was conducted and specific challenges were identified. These challenges must be addressed through the General Plan Update process to better achieve the City’s and County’s parks and open space goals. Recommendations for changes to the General Plan are provided at the end of this section.

Parks and Open Space The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan established the “Resources” concept of development, which emphasizes the placement of development to reflect the planning area’s many natural and visual resources: foothills, rivers, canals and other water features. One component of the Resources concept is to encourage linkages to these unique resources to urban areas.

In general, the Metropolitan area lacks a cohesive system of open space amenities, with many of the area’s major amenities including the Kern River, bluffs and foothills being under-utilized as open space resources. Compared to widely used national standards, the Metropolitan Bakersfield area has a shortage of local parks. Compared to the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield park standards, neighborhood parks fall short; however, overall park and recreational spaces are in excess of the standard (see Table 2.4.2-1 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield Existing Park Standards Comparison).

2.4-3 APRIL 2009 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

TABLE 2.4.2-1 2002 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD EXISTING PARK STANDARDS COMPARISON

Local Park Type Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Standard National Standard Area (acres per 1,000 (acres per 1,000 (acres per 1,000 residents) residents) residents) Mini-parks .0663 NA .25-.5 Neighborhood 1.88 2.5 1-2 Parks Community Parks 4.94 NA 5-8 Regional Parks 4.7 NA 100 acre minimum2 Park and Recreational 11.5863 4.0 NA Space1 1Park and recreational space includes mini-parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and regional parks. 2The national park standard for regional parks is not based on an acreage/persons standard but a minimum acreage.

An increase in the number of parks and a more cohesive open space system were guiding principles of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Metropolitan Bakersfield residents also identified the need for additional parks and open space, particularly in northeast Bakersfield, at the May 2007 public workshops.

After the 2002 General Plan, the City of Bakersfield updated its Recreation and Parks Master Plan in 2007 which identified needed park facilities and recreation programs to serve projected growth in the City as identified in the General Plan. Areas in the County located beyond the City of Bakersfield’s Sphere of Influence are addressed in the County Parks and Recreation Master Plan and North of the River Recreation and Park District Plan.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Parks And Open Space? In addition to containing policies that provide development standards for parks in Metropolitan Bakersfield, the General Plan Parks Element and Open Space Element contains the following policies which set more specific direction and guide actions for development of parks and open space.

The policies identified are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to parks and open space. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Parks Policy 2: Allow the formation of special park districts which provide higher park standards than the minimum stated in Policy 1 (I-1).

APRIL 2009 2.4-4 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Parks Policy 3: Require developers to dedicate land, provide improvements and/or in-lieu fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing areas (I-1).

Parks Policy 4: Require developers of new subdivisions to show and adhere to park locations (depicted on the Land Use Element). Park locations identified in master plans approved prior to adoption of this general plan are reflected in this plan. Variations may be allowed based on certain constraints. See Policy 6 (I-9).

Parks Policy 7: Provide mini-parks in developed residential areas where neighborhood standards are not met and where it is impossible to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood facilities. Use the same funding mechanisms indicated in Policy 6 (I-1).

Parks Policy 9: Allow neighborhood park requirements to be met by community parks when community parks are situated within or at the boundaries of neighborhoods and when they provide equivalent facilities (I-9).

Parks Policy 14: Plan for and expand regional recreation opportunity in connection with the development and conservation of appropriate areas along the Kern River (I-4, I-8).

Parks Policy 25: Promote the preservation of existing parks and encourage the development of other facilities near downtown (I-8).

Parks Policy 34: Encourage coordination in the acquisition, development and use of parks and schools to avoid duplication of facilities and provide economic use of public funds (I-3, I-5).

Parks Policy 43: Encourage the development of private and commercial recreation facilities under lease or concession agreements where such facilities are consistent with planned development and offer expanded recreation opportunities to the public (I-2).

Parks Policy 46: Permit major traffic generating activities on community park sites only (I- 3).

Parks Policy 47: Community parks should be located adjacent to or near arterials. Neighborhood parks should be located adjacent to collector or local streets, rather than arterial streets (I-1, I-3). (CC 11/6/91)

2.4-5 APRIL 2009 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Parks Policy 49: Design vegetation, earth form and activity areas to buffer noise, light, etc., from adjacent residents (I-3).

Parks Policy 50: Allow the physical integration of canals in park areas where design measures can be incorporated to ensure public safety (I-3).

Parks Policy 53: Coordinate the provision of park facilities with other public services and facilities, especially schools and public roads (I-7, I-8).

Parks Policy 57: Central Park should be expanded to facilitate the City of Bakersfield in identifying and recognizing its historical heritage, the heart of historic Bakersfield, and to enhance the urban environment of the downtown area. (I-12)

Open Space Policy 15: Encourage the establishment of public neighborhood parks in or adjacent to the North Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) as subdivisions are approved. (I-8)

Challenges The policies should incorporate recent updates to the City of Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan addressed areas in the City’s Sphere of Influence only.

The City of Bakersfield and Kern County currently have different parks standards.

Policies refer to the North Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA), but there is no map identifying its location or boundaries.

Lack of cooperation with programs between the City, County and the North of the River Recreation and Park District.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate policies identified in the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan to promote consistent application throughout the planning area.

2. Identify the location of the North Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) to aid in implementation of policies relating to the area.

3. Promote the joint use of facilities for park and recreation services with other agencies, such as school districts, while recognizing that some school districts may not want facilities or parks adjacent to schools due to potential crime.

APRIL 2009 2.4-6 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

4. Promote the coordination of programs between the City, County and the North of the River Recreation and Parks District.

5. Include policies to assist in the public use of the Kern River, bluffs and foothills open space resources.

Trails In March of 1996 the City of Bakersfield adopted the Specific Trails Plan to satisfy policies and implementation measures contained in the Kern River Plan Element. Kern County adopted the Kern River Specific Trails Plan in 2003, which complements the City of Bakersfield’s plan. The plans were prepared to identify alignments and address provisions for dedications, acquisitions, improvements, maintenance, and development standards of multiple use trails.

The City of Bakersfield also adopted the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield in 2003. The plan was intended to provide more specific direction for implementing parks and trails in the northeast portion of the planning area. A number of other plans also identify trail alignments including the Western Rosedale Specific Plan Trails Plan as well as the Rosedale Ranch, McAllister Ranch, West Ming, Old River Ranch, Riverlakes, and Ashe No. 4 Plans.

In addition to the goals and policies of the various plans identifying trail alignments, the residents of Metropolitan Bakersfield expressed numerous times during the May 2007 workshops a desire for better connectivity as well as alternatives to automobile travel through additional walking and bicycle paths.

Development of trails throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is a key component to the implementation of the Building Blocks and resources concepts, identified in Section 2.1 of this report.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Trails? Due to the range of elements that address trails and connectivity, many of the policies contained throughout the General Plan provide direction on trails in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The following sections of this report identify many of these policies:

Section 2.1 Land Use Element – Connectivity

Section 2.2 Circulation Element – Alternate Commuting Options

In addition to policies identified in the above-referenced sections, the Parks Element and Open Space Element include the following policies focused on trails.

2.4-7 APRIL 2009 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Parks Policy 26: Encourage the further development of the City of Bakersfield’s specific trails plan (I-11).

Parks Policy 27: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle linkages between residential and commercial uses (I-11).

Parks Policy 28: Encourage the establishment of equestrian trials where they link residential development to the Kern River in areas of the northeast and northwest where horses are permitted by zoning (I-2, I-11).

Parks Policy 29: Design equestrian trails, hiking and bicycling rights-of-way to minimize user conflicts between them (I-2, I-11).

Open Space Policy 16: Establish linkages between North Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) and adopted trail systems. (I-8) (I-9)

Challenges The policies should incorporate recent updates to the City of Bakersfield Specific Trails Plan and the Kern County Specific Trails Plan.

Trails and trail alignments have been identified in multiple plans, which results in a lack of consistency for improvements, design, prioritization or maintenance of these trails.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate policies identified in the City and County Specific Trails Plans to promote consistent application between the jurisdictions.

2. Update policies to reflect actions completed through development of subsequent plans.

3. Promote the joint use of facilities for trails with other agencies, including public utility agencies.

4. Promote connectivity through the trail system to amenities such as the river and foothills.

5. Coordinate trail system to provide connectivity to major activity centers to promote alternative modes of transportation.

APRIL 2009 2.4-8 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

6. Create a master trails plan for the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area to include trails and trail alignments identified in the various plans. This may include recission of some existing plans that would no longer be necessary.

TABLE 2.4.1-1 EXISTING PARKS IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

Park Name1 Agency Acreage 1 Solera Garden City of Bakersfield 3.7 2 Kern River Parkway Park City of Bakersfield 1138.2 3 University Park City of Bakersfield 10.8 4 Siemon Park City of Bakersfield 8.2 5 Mesa Marin Ball Diamonds City of Bakersfield 17.7 6 Jefferson Park City of Bakersfield 8.0 7 Joshua Park City of Bakersfield 0.6 8 Weill Park City of Bakersfield 1.7 9 Central Park City of Bakersfield 11.2 10 Yokuts Park City of Bakersfield 16.4 11 Jastro Park City of Bakersfield 8.7 12 Centennial Plaza City of Bakersfield 1.1 13 MC Murtrey Aquatic Center City of Bakersfield 2.0 14 Martin Luther King Park City of Bakersfield 14.0 15 Saunders Park City of Bakersfield 9.1 16 Beale Park City of Bakersfield 6.4 17 Lowell Park City of Bakersfield 10.2 18 Centennial Park City of Bakersfield 9.0 19 Quailwood Park City of Bakersfield 10.6 20 Future Park City of Bakersfield 38.0 21 The Park at River Walk Park City of Bakersfield 33.2 22 Bill Park Greens Park City of Bakersfield 2.7 23 River Oaks Park City of Bakersfield 20.0 24 Windsor Park City of Bakersfield 6.0 25 Kroll Park City of Bakersfield 4.2 26 Wayside Park City of Bakersfield 14.0 27 Deer Peak Park City of Bakersfield 6.0 28 Patriots Park City of Bakersfield 20.0

2.4-9 APRIL 2009 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Park Name1 Agency Acreage 29 Amberton Park City of Bakersfield 2.7 30 Wilson Park City of Bakersfield 6.8 31 Haggin Oaks Park City of Bakersfield 8.9 32 Westwold Park City of Bakersfield 8.0 33 Castle Park City of Bakersfield 10.6 34 Pin Oak Park City of Bakersfield 16.8 35 Windermer Park City of Bakersfield 6.2 36 Corvallis Park City of Bakersfield 8.8 37 Garden Park City of Bakersfield 5.7 38 Planz Park City of Bakersfield 8.3 39 Campus Park N. City of Bakersfield 11.1 40 Tevis Park City of Bakersfield 10.7 41 Grissom Park City of Bakersfield 11.3 42 Campus Park S. City of Bakersfield 12.1 43 Stiern Park City of Bakersfield 7.9 44 Silver Creek Park City of Bakersfield 14.4 45 Coral Keys Park City of Bakersfield 2.3 46 Wilderness Park City of Bakersfield 4.9 47 Seasons Park City of Bakersfield 9.8 48 Challenger Park City of Bakersfield 5.1 49 Stone Creek Park City of Bakersfield 6.1 50 Beach Park City of Bakersfield 21.6 51 Weston Park City of Bakersfield 6.0 52 Tradewinds Park City of Bakersfield 7.9 53 Greystone Park City of Bakersfield 10.4 54 Granite Point Park City of Bakersfield 4.0 55 Hart Memorial Park County of Kern 451.2 56 Kern River Golf Course County of Kern 182.1 57 Lake Ming County of Kern 496.6 58 College Park County of Kern 17.1 59 Panorama Park County of Kern 30.7 60 Wilkins Park County of Kern 1.1 61 Metropolitan Recreation Center County of Kern 99.5

APRIL 2009 2.4-10 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Park Name1 Agency Acreage 62 Heritage Park County of Kern 19.3 63 Pioneer Park County of Kern 9.5 64 Potomac Park County of Kern 4.4 65 Virginia Avenue Park County of Kern 9.5 66 Belle Terrace Park County of Kern 20.7 67 Kern Delta Park County of Kern 12.1 68 Greenfield Park County of Kern 4.8 69 Bear Mountain Park County of Kern 9.1 70 Lamont Park County of Kern 7.9 71 Rexland Acres Park County of Kern 4.5 72 North Highland Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 15.0 73 North Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 4.5 74 McCray Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 1.7 75 Sears Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 2.1 76 Fruitvale Norris Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 17.1 77 Standard Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 15.4 78 North Beardley Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 6.6 79 Olive Park West North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 2.5 80 Olive Park East North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 2.5 81 Riverview Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 20.0 82 Emerald Cove Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 10.0 83 North Rosedale Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 13.0 84 Greenacres Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 15.1 85 Westdale Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 8.1 86 Liberty Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 21.7 87 Mondavi Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 9.1 88 Almondale Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 11.5 89 San Lauren Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 8.1 90 Madison Grove Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 11.0 91 North Meadows Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 8.8 92 Rasmussen Center North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 1.3 93 Riverlakes Ranch Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 25.7 94 Polo Community Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 38.3

2.4-11 APRIL 2009 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Park Name1 Agency Acreage 95 Rosedale Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 19.6 96 Silver Oak Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 8.9 97 Austin Creek Park North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District 4.8 98 Kern County Soccer Park Soccer Park Foundation 134.0 99 Kern River State Recreation Area State of California 130.7 Total Acreage 3,606.6 1 Does not include water banks, private facilities or the Kern County Fairgrounds

APRIL 2009 2.4-12 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

The Noise Element of a General Plan identifies and analyzes noise sources and problems, and includes policies to address them.

2.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element provides a basis for the control and abatement of noise to protect citizens from excessive noise exposure. The plan includes Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise criteria for use in determining land use compatibility for various land uses based on recommendations obtained from the California Office of Noise Control’s "Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan" (1976). These land use compatibility criteria identify “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, and “normally unacceptable” noise levels for various land uses.

In addition to the use of CNEL, the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan includes noise standards to be applied for shorter periods of exposure, based on the cumulative number of minutes that a noise event occurs, which includes impulsive noise events. These types of events would include noise impacts that occur on an intermittent basis, such as train whistles, construction activities that occur during short periods of time, and airport traffic. These types of noise impacts are typically measured using identification of an hourly-average rather than 24-hour-average noise standard.

The following are brief overviews of major noise sources as discussed in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Major Noise Sources The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identifies four major noise sources (see Figure 2.5.1-1 Major Noise Sources):

Highways and Major Streets

Railroad Operations

Airports

Industrial and Other Stationary Sources

Noise issues related to each of these sources are described below.

Highways and Major Local Streets Cars and trucks traveling on roadways are the single largest source of noise in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, affecting businesses and residences throughout the planning area.

2.5-1 APRIL 2009 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Because roadway noise increases as traffic volumes increase (more cars = more noise), noise levels near roadways in the planning area will continue to increase over time, affecting more homes and businesses and potentially requiring expensive solutions such as sound walls and housing retrofits (to add double or triple pane windows and other noise reduction methods).

Railroad Operations Two rail companies, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (B.N.S.F.) and Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP), provide freight service in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Amtrak provides passenger rail service.

Noise from individual train movements produce short-noise impacts and for areas near active rail lines, railroad noise can be a major issue.

Airport Operations Two airports are located in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area:1

Meadows Field, owned and operated by Kern County, and

Bakersfield Municipal Airport, owned and operated by the City of Bakersfield

Aircraft taking off and landing at these airports is a major source of noise, affecting areas that extend far beyond the boundaries of the airports.

The locations of CNEL contours are one of the factors used by the 2002 Metropolitan General Plan to define compatibility zone boundaries for land surrounding the airports, as included in the land use plan for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

Industrial Facilities and Other Stationary Noise Sources The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identifies a number of “stationary” noise sources in the planning area:

Boat racing on Lake Ming,

Truck traffic occurring on individual sites (not on roadways),

Several large industrial facilities, and

The railroad classification yards for both Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Transportation Company.

1 Additional information on these airports can be found in the “Circulation” chapter of this report.

APRIL 2009 2.5-2 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.5.1-1 MAJOR NOISE SOURCES

2.5-3 APRIL 2009 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.5.2 ISSUES In order to protect noise sensitive land uses from the types of land uses that create noise it is important to have strong, clear and concise goals and policies, as well as clear and workable noise standards that can be used by planners and developers.

“Noise” was identified as a major issue that needs to be addressed in the General Plan Update. Comments received during the May 2007 workshop series are summarized below, followed by recommendations for changes to the General Plan.

Noise Impacts Roadways and Railroads Traffic on area roadways and trains traveling on the numerous railways in the area are major sources of noise in the Metropolitan area. State highways in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area include: State Routes 43, 58, 99, 119, 178, 184 and 204. As the planning area becomes more urbanized with the buildout of the General Plan, more vehicles will travel along area roadways. This increase in vehicles trips will result in an overall increase in long term ambient transportation noise levels.

The City of Bakersfield is traversed by various rail corridors operated by the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). In addition to the freight train operations, the City of Bakersfield is also served by Amtrak. The City of Bakersfield recently completed an evaluation of train noise levels at grade crossings to determine appropriate treatments for the creation of a new Quiet Zone (RCL 2007).

Airports Aircraft taking off and landing at Meadows Field and Bakersfield Municipal Airports is a major source of noise, affecting areas that extend beyond the boundaries of the airports.

While the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land uses reflect the locations of the CNEL contours of each airport and compatible land uses including agricultural and industrial uses have been planned within these contours, the Meadows Field Airport Master Plan has since been updated. The revised Master Plan, adopted in June 2006, identifies an expansion to the runway facilities resulting in new CNEL contours that could impact existing land use designations in the vicinity.

Non-Transportation Noise Sources Various commercial and industrial land uses located in the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area result in a substantial contribution to ambient noise levels including uses such as the Bakersfield Speedway and boat races at Lake Ming. The primary noise sources associated with these facilities are caused by the operation of motorized equipment and vehicles, stationary equipment (i.e., air compressors, pool pumps, generators, etc.) outdoor loudspeakers and gas venting. Other significant stationary noise sources in Metropolitan Bakersfield include noise from construction activities. A variety of other stationary sources,

APRIL 2009 2.5-4 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

such as trash compactors, air conditioning units, and other outdoor equipment also create noise that can affect adjacent areas.

From a land use planning perspective, there are two goals for controlling noise:

1) Prevent the introduction of new noise-producing uses in noise-sensitive areas, and

2) Reduce existing and future noise levels (by using noise-reducing technology, placing noisy uses in locations where they will not affect noise-sensitive uses, and reducing traffic levels).

The first goal can be achieved by applying noise performance standards to proposed new noise-producing uses.

The second goal can be met by requiring that new noise-producing facilities include mitigation measures to ensure compliance with noise performance standards. Noise levels are typically reduced by incorporation of setbacks, use of barriers, or changes in site design. Noise-producing activities can also be placed in locations where they will not affect noise-sensitive uses (such as in industrial areas or inside buildings).

Noise impacts are best controlled through effective land use planning, the application of the CEQA mitigation process and the application of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Noise barriers that may be used typically include fences, hedges, berms, and walls. These barriers can create negative effects on community character if they are not architecturally compatible with the proposed buildings or surrounding area, or if they reduce connectivity with adjacent uses and trail or open space systems. Walls can also become a place for graffiti to occur. The use of sounds barriers to mitigate increased noise levels in established neighborhoods can in some cases be infeasible to accomplish (e.g. installing sounds walls in the front yards of homes fronting roadways).

See also Section 2.2 Circulation Element for further discussion on roadways and rail services in Metropolitan Bakersfield.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Noise Impacts? In addition to containing policies that provide for the reduction of the impact of noise within Metropolitan Bakersfield, the General Plan Noise Element contains the following policies which set more specific direction and guide actions for the maintenance and reduction of noise.

2.5-5 APRIL 2009 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Noise Policy 1: Identify noise-impact areas exposed to existing or projected noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL (exterior) or the performance standards described in Table VII-2. The noise exposure contour maps on file at the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern indicate areas where existing and projected noise exposures exceed 65 dB CNEL (exterior) for the major noise sources identified (I-1).

Noise Policy 2: Prohibit new noise-sensitive land uses in noise-impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into project design to reduce noise to acceptable levels. (I-2, I-3, I-6, I-7).

Noise Policy 3: Review discretionary industrial, commercial or other noise-generating land use projects for compatibility with nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

Additionally, the development of new noise-generating land uses which are not preempted from local noise regulation will be reviewed if resulting noise levels will exceed the performance standards contained within Table VII-2 in areas containing residential or other noise-sensitive land uses (I-3, I-6, I-7).

Noise Policy 4: Require noise level criteria applied to land uses other than residential or other noise-sensitive uses to be consistent with the recommendations of the California Office of Noise Control (see Figure VII-1 (I-4)).

Noise Policy 5: Encourage vegetation and landscaping along roadways and adjacent to other noise sources in order to increase absorption of noise (I-7).

Noise Policy 6: Encourage interjurisdictional coordination and cooperation with regard to noise impact issues (I-8).

Noise Policy 7: Establish threshold standards for the determination of the existence of cumulative noise impacts that are significant, and will therefore require mitigation to achieve acceptable noise standards that do not exceed the standards contained in this element (I-9, 1-10)

Challenges The existing policies do not incorporate updated noise criteria for determination of land use compatibility for proposed noise-sensitive land uses.

APRIL 2009 2.5-6 2.5 NOISE ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Current "state-of-the-art" technology and development of specific methodologies and procedures for implementation are not included in the policies but would improve the effectiveness of the Noise Element.

The General Plan includes various inconsistencies between recommended noise criteria for determination of land use compatibility and the exterior and interior noise standards identified by the General Plan’s noise policies.

The General Plan identifies inconsistent noise criteria between the City of Bakersfield, which uses the “CNEL” standard, and Kern County, which uses Ldn.

Although noise barriers, such as walls, assist in the reduction of noise exposure to certain sensitive land uses they can have other negative effects on community character.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Reevaluate the noise standards in the General Plan to ensure internal consistency.

2. Coordinate city, county, and state agencies involved in noise abatement and other agencies to reduce noise generated from sources outside the City’s jurisdiction.

3. Include an action item to adopt quantitative noise standards as part of the City’s noise ordinance, which might aid in the implementation of General Plan noise policies, particularly for non-transportation noise sources.

4. Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the Metropolitan area’s noise standards, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project and the noise barriers are not incompatible with the surroundings.

5. Incorporate policies to allow for exceptions to the existing thresholds of significance for noise standards in established neighborhoods. For instance, not requiring that sound walls be constructed along roadways in established residential neighborhoods, which could involve revision to the City and County noise ordinances.

2.5-7 APRIL 2009

2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

The Safety Element of a General Plan addresses protection from any unreasonable risks associated with hazards such as fire, flood, and earthquakes. Public safety issues related to fire and police protection are also addressed in the Safety Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

2.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides safety goals and policies in three distinct focus areas:

Seismic hazards,

Other geologic hazards, and

Public safety.

The following is a brief overview of these focus areas as described in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Seismic Hazards The Metropolitan Bakersfield area is located near the eastern edge of the broad San Joaquin Valley, at the base of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The valley is a large, northwest-trending trough (geosyncline) between the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast Range mountains on the west. The valley is filled with thick sediments eroded from the mountains on both sides.

There are numerous geologic fractures in the earth's crust within the San Joaquin Valley. The most prominent is the San Andreas Fault. Other fault systems in the Bakersfield region include Breckenridge, Kern Canyon, Garlock, and White Wolf faults (see Figure 2.6.1-1 Major Active Faults).

Potential seismic hazards existing in the planning area include strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, earthquake induced landslides and potential inundation from the failure of Lake Isabella dam. Other geologic hazards in the planning area include flooding, landslides, and subsidence.

In addressing the potential geologic and seismic hazards of the plan area, the siting and design of certain essential and critical facilities must be properly planned if public health and safety are to be maintained following a disaster. Most critical and essential facilities in, or influencing, the Metropolitan Bakersfield area (e.g. hospitals, schools, dams, etc.) are under state or federal regulation and control, and may be beyond the control of local jurisdictions. Other projects, including many critical facilities, are under local discretionary jurisdiction, and are therefore affected by the policies established in this plan.

2.6-1 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.6.1-1 MAJOR ACTIVE FAULTS

APRIL 2009 2.6-2 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Strong Ground Shaking The principal seismic hazard affecting the planning area is the potential for strong ground shaking from any of the four major faults in the region.

The most vulnerable structures in an earthquake are the unreinforced masonry buildings in Metropolitan Bakersfield, which were built before seismic codes were first instituted by the City and County. Other building types that may pose substantial hazards in an earthquake include precast concrete tilt-up buildings, and predominantly multi-story buildings of non- ductile concrete frame and composite precast concrete construction types.

The City’s retrofit program for unreinforced masonry buildings has been very successful. A complete inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings was completed and the City conducted a very aggressive seismic retrofit construction program after 1990. Of those buildings identified as “unreinforced masonry structures”, 85% are now up to 1993 seismic construction standards. The County has performed a similar inventory and notified owners of the status of their buildings.

Fault Rupture Fault rupture is a break in the ground's surface and associated deformation resulting from movement along an earthquake fault. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps on file with the City of Bakersfield and Kern County show the areas mapped by the State of California where fault rupture could occur along known earthquake faults. Special studies are required prior to building structures for human occupancy within Earthquake Fault Zones to ensure that buildings are not placed directly on a fault.

Liquefaction “Liquefaction” occurs when earthshaking causes soil to behave more like a liquid than a solid, often with the result that buildings sink into the liquefied soil and are destroyed.

Areas of high groundwater are at a greater risk for liquefaction of soils during a major earthquake. Damage in urbanized areas as the result of liquefaction can be severe due to the settling of the foundations of homes, buildings, irrigation equipment, roads, and freeways.

High groundwater is known to exist at depths of 5 to 15 feet below the ground surface in portions of south Bakersfield between Brundage Lane and DiGiorgio Road. This area, as depicted in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, could experience areas of liquefaction during a strong earthquake, with attendant ground rupture and potential sinking or tilting of large buildings. Areas of high groundwater are rare elsewhere in the project area because the water table has been in a condition of subsidence due to the extraction of water for irrigation since the late 1880's.

2.6-3 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Dam Failure Inundation Dam inundation is a threat (generally very remote) wherever dams are built. The catastrophic failure of dams as the result of poor design or natural disasters has caused the loss of thousands of lives in the US and around the world.

The Bakersfield Metropolitan area is located downstream of Isabella Dam on Lake Isabella that could fail and cause severe flooding, damage, and loss of life. The dam has a capacity to hold 570,000 acre feet of water and is built near a major earthquake fault, therefore requiring special design and scrutiny to protect the safety of persons downstream. If the dam were to fail, the resulting flood would inundate some 60 square miles of Metropolitan Bakersfield and the surrounding areas of Oildale and Greenacres (see Figure 2.6.1-2 Isabella Dam Inundation Areas).

In 2006 the Lake Isabella Dam was found to be unstable at full capacity of Isabella Reservoir and the dam had to be drawn down to stabilize the earth works. The Army Corps of Engineers has restricted the reservoir to approximately 60% capacity until studies and repairs are made, which is estimated to take 10-15 years.

The objective of the existing Flood Evacuation Plans for the Metropolitan Area is to provide for the protection of life and property through evacuation of areas that would be inundated in the event of a dam failure. These major evacuation routes are identified in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

In February 2008 Kern County developed a Strategic Plan that addresses the protection of the citizens of Kern County. This plan was designed to set goals and be updated on a yearly basis. One of the goals is to enhance emergency preparedness and response and recovery efforts. A projected outcome of this goal is the development of a comprehensive dam failure evacuation plan based on new inundation maps.

Earthquake Induced Landslides A strong earthquake could trigger landslides or slope failures on steeper slopes in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon and floodplain. The common types of landslides induced by earthquakes are bluff and stream bank failures, rock falls and soil slips on steep slopes. Deep-seated landslides are not necessarily reactivated in an earthquake.

Other Geologic Hazards The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identifies three other geologic hazards. The following is a brief description of these hazards.

Flooding Flooding in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area originates from the Kern River watershed which lies in Kern and Tulare Counties at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada Range, and from the Caliente Creek stream group which drains the west slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains. Some smaller areas are subject to flooding from localized watersheds.

APRIL 2009 2.6-4 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.6.1-2 ISABELLA DAM INUNDATION AREAS

2.6-5 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

The most severe flooding problems on the Kern River near Bakersfield have resulted from high-intensity winter rainstorms, which generally occur from November through April.

Snowmelt floods, which usually occur in the late spring and early summer, generally have a longer period of runoff and also a lower peak than rain floods. As a result, these spring storms have rarely caused significant damage.

In the past 40 years, seven major floods along Caliente Creek have occurred. Floods in September 1932; April 1943; March 1944; October 1945; December 1966; February 1969; March 1983 and during the “El Nino” of 1998, have been investigated by the Kern County Water Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The frequency and the magnitude of these floods, coupled with the existing development in the floodplain have caused extensive flood damage to the Lamont/Arvin area.

Areas of potential flooding in the region have been delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program and are depicted in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (see Figure 2.6.1-3 Areas of Potential Flooding).

Landslides Slopes subject to failure within the Bakersfield area are predominantly found along the river terraces, bluffs and foothills to the northeast and east of the City. Investigations to date have documented two landslides in the foothills northeast of the City. Only limited exposure to landslides is predicted for the urban areas of Metropolitan Bakersfield, due to constraints on slope-side development. Some construction, however, on sloping terrain could inadvertently trigger landslides unless appropriate precautions are utilized on a site-specific basis.

Land Subsidence Land subsidence is the gradual, local settling or sinking of the earth's surface. Subsidence in the Bakersfield area has historically been caused most commonly by gas, oil or water extraction. The southern part of the planning area has been undergoing gradual land subsidence though there are no recent studies indicating the exact level of subsidence. Although subsidence is not a significant hazard, damage to wells, foundations and underground utilities may occur.

Public Safety The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identified public safety services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Police services are provided by the Bakersfield Police Department and the Kern County Sheriff's Department (see Figure 2.6.1-4 Police/Sherriff and Fire Stations for the City of Bakersfield and Kern County). Fire services are provided by both the City of Bakersfield Fire Department and the Kern County Fire Department. A brief description of each follows.

APRIL 2009 2.6-6 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.6.1-3 AREAS OF POTENTIAL FLOODING

2.6-7 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

City of Bakersfield Police Department The City of Bakersfield Police Department is responsible for providing police services in the incorporated area of the City of Bakersfield and operates 25 patrol districts, maintains two substations, and one satellite office, in addition to headquarters. As the population and geographic area of the City increases, the demand for police service will similarly increase. At present, the staffing standard applied to the Police Department is a ratio of officers per thousand population in cities of comparable size. Occasionally, problems exist with regard to police services to residents in the unincorporated portions of Bakersfield. Some calls for police service must be transferred from the receiving agency to the agency with jurisdiction over the incident. Improvements in cellular telephone technology have reduce the occurrence of these issues. However, City patrol units encountering a public safety problem within an unincorporated area will take the necessary action to stabilize the situation prior to the arrival of Sheriff or Highway Patrol officers. Kern County Sheriff’s Department The Kern County Sheriff’s Department is the headquarter facility for law enforcement services in unincorporated Kern County. Metropolitan patrol services for unincorporated Bakersfield operates from the headquarter facility and includes community policing offices in East Bakersfield, Rosedale, and Lamont. Service to unincorporated areas of Kern County outside of the metropolitan patrol is provided through 17 substation locations, including Lamont. The Sheriff’s Department cooperates with the Bakersfield Police Department in patrolling the Bakersfield urban area; however, the staffing levels are primarily tied to the population within each jurisdiction. Sheriff’s patrol units traveling through the City will respond to observed public safety problems and call the City police for follow up. City of Bakersfield Fire Department The City of Bakersfield Fire Department operates 14 fire stations in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Fire stations inside the city have been positioned to meet an emergency response time of 7 minutes or less 90% of the time for the first arriving unit. The Fire Department provides structural protection, fire prevention service, emergency medical service (designated first responders), rescue service, hazardous materials response, arson investigation, environmental services (a unified permit/enforcement division) and safety education to the citizenry. Agreements have been adopted between the Kern County Fire Department and the City of Bakersfield Fire Department. They generally facilitate (1) Closest station response concept, (2) Dual agency training facility, and (3) Emergency radio communication and dispatching for both agencies from one center. The two agencies have also adopted non-overlapping and contiguous station response boundaries within the Bakersfield metropolitan area. With the automatic aid agreement, each fire station has the primary responsibility for its individual area and emergency services are provided without regard to City or County limits.

APRIL 2009 2.6-8 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.6.1-4 POLICE/SHERRIFF AND FIRE STATIONS FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND KERN COUNTY

2.6-9 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Kern County Fire Department The Kern County Fire Department operates 13 fire stations in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Fire stations within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area have been situated to meet an emergency response time of 7 minutes or less.

In general, the Kern County Fire Department has the capacity to protect life and property within the unincorporated portions of the study area. As new growth and development occurs, increased personnel and/or facilities will be required to meet new demands for service.

2.6.2 ISSUES Implementation of basic safety within the Metropolitan Bakersfield areas relies on the goals and policies identified in the General Plan. Goals and policies should be clear and concise to adequately relate the intent of the City and County vision for the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning areas.

Specific issues have been identified that inhibit implementation of the Safety goals for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that need to be addressed in the General Plan Update. These issues, derived from public input received through the May 2007 Phase I Town Hall Meetings and various surveys conducted in conjunction with the KernCOG Regional Blueprint process, include:

Floodplains

Fire and Police/Sherrif Services

An evaluation of each issue relative to the existing General Plan policies is provided below. Recommendations for changes to the General Plan follow the evalutation.

Floodplains Minimizing the potential hazards as a result of flooding within Metropolitan Bakersfield is a basic principle of the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. With the construction of Lake Isabella Dam, hazards from a 100-year flood on the Kern River have been substantially reduced for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Floodplains? The General Plan Safety Element contains the following policies pertaining to floodplains:

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to floodplains. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

APRIL 2009 2.6-10 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Safety-Flooding Policy 1: Develop specific standards which apply to development located in flood hazard areas, as defined by Federal Flood Insurance maps and most recent information as adopted by the responsible agency (I-1, I-2).

Safety-Flooding Policy 2: Maintain adequate levees along the Kern River channel throughout the planning area (I-4).

Safety-Flooding Policy 3: Prevent urban development encroachment which would impede flood flows in the Kern River designated floodway (I-3, I-5).

Safety-Flooding Policy 4: Remove sand and excessive plant growth from the Kern River channel as required to maintain channel capacity through the planning area (I-6).

Safety-Flooding Policy 5: Develop a program or series of programs to control and reduce flooding in the Lamont area resulting from Caliente Creek (I-7).

Safety-Flooding Policy 6: The County’s Flood Prevention Program shall be implemented for new development in areas of flooding potential.

Challenges Reference is made to evacuation routes; however, there is no depiction of where those evacuation routes occur. Does not reflect the latest information from the Army Corp of Engineers studies prepared for the dam inundation area.

Policy language relating to development in floodplains is too general. The 100-year floodplain is a potential constraint to development, as future development would be potentially subject to flooding. The State of California’s General Plan Guidelines recommend a comprehensive approach to avoiding unreasonable flood risks.

Flooding is often a regional problem that crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, any approach the Metropolitan area adopts related to floodplains should be developed cooperatively with local, state and federal agencies, and with local special districts.

Prevent potential loss in the event of the failure of the Lake Isabella Dam.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Identify evacuation routes consistent with the 2008 Kern County Strategic Plan.

2. Update policies to reflect information from the Army Corp of Engineers studies for the dam inundation area.

2.6-11 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

3. Enhance policies to keep intensive development out of floodplains.

4. Protect areas of natural watercourses by preventing development and designating these areas as permanent open space or park space.

5. Incorporate mitigation measures to protect against flood impacts if development is located in floodplains, minimizing impacts on existing development where possible.

6. Establish policies regarding capital improvements and acquisitions necessary to ensure flood protection.

7. Establish flood management policies that may include both structural and non- structural approaches to flood control using a multi-objective watershed approach.

8. Limit alteration of floodways and channelization when alternative methods of flood control are not technically feasible.

9. Promote aggressive local flood mitigation activities to reduce or eliminate the need for state or federal flood disaster declarations.

Fire and Police Services Police and Sheriff Services The need to expand police services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield was identified by the 2002 Metropolitan General Plan. Further, many residents of Metropolitan Bakersfield identified the following concerns related to public safety at the May 2007 public workshops:

The overall deterioration of neighborhoods;

The lack of public services for parts of the community, such as police protection;

Physical threats such as gang activity and drug use; and

Many expressed concern and a correlation of the crime and gang problems to low performing schools, poor test scores, teacher shortages and lack of activities for youth after school.

Fire Services The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan identified the need to expand fire facilities and services based on the growth projections for the Metropolitan area. The City of Bakersfield Fire Department and Kern County Fire Department provide structural protection, fire prevention service, emergency medical service (designated first responders), rescue service, hazardous materials response, arson investigation, environmental services (a unified permit/enforcement division) and safety education to the citizenry.

According to the 2005 Municipal Service Review (MSR), fire protection services would be provided per the Joint Powers Agreement between City of Bakersfield and the Kern County

APRIL 2009 2.6-12 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Fire Department. These two agencies also have adopted non-overlapping and contiguous station response boundaries within the Bakersfield Metropolitan area.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Fire And Police/Sheriff Services? The General Plan Safety Element contains the following policies pertaining to fire and police services:

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to fire and police services. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Safety-Public Safety Policy 1: Identify future site locations, projected facility expansions, projected site acquisition costs, construction costs and operational costs in a manner that would maximize the efficiency of new public safety services (I-1, I-2, I-3).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 2: Require discretionary projects to assess impacts on police and fire services and facilities (I-3).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 3: Adopt uniform metropolitan area standards for fire and police services, and undertake continuing metropolitan area-wide planning programs for public safety facilities (I-3).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 4: Monitor, enforce and update as appropriate all emergency plans as needs and conditions in the planning area change, including the California Earthquake Response Plan, the Kern County Evacuation Plan, and the City of Bakersfield Disaster Plan (I-3).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 5: Promote public education about fire safety at home and in the work place (I-4).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 6: Promote fire prevention methods to reduce service protection costs and costs to the taxpayer (I-4).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 7: Enforce ordinances regulating the use/manufacture/sale/ transport/disposal of hazardous substances, and require compliance with state and federal laws regulating such substances (I-4).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 8: The Kern County and Incorporated Cities Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report serves as the policy document guiding all facets of hazardous waste (I-7,).

2.6-13 APRIL 2009 2.6 SAFETY ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Safety-Public Safety Policy 9: Restrict, after appropriate public hearings, the use of fire-prone building materials in areas defined by the fire services as presenting high-conflagration risk (I-5).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 10: Promote crime prevention through public education (I-6).

Safety-Public Safety Policy 11: Expand emergency medical services by the City and County Fire Departments, and encourage the integration of ground and air, public and private resources to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of emergency medical services (I-3).

In addition to the policies contained in the Safety Element, the General Plan Land Use Element contains goals and policies as follows:

Land Use Policy 50: Coordinate with the appropriate agencies so that adequate land and facilities are set aside for schools, parks, police/fire, libraries, cultural facilities, recreational facilities and other service uses to serve the community (I-2).

Challenges The General Plan primarily addresses land use issues, and does not directly deal with staffing City/County departments. Nevertheless, some General Plans do indicate a desired level of staffing, and the City and County may wish to set such a standard in the General Plan.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Include policies which encourage logical development and discourage leapfrog development to assist in a more efficient public safety service to the community.

2. Allow fire stations and police substations in multiple land use designations.

3. Include policies and implementing measures regarding requirements for future development to support the installation and long-term operation of new fire and police facilities.

APRIL 2009 2.6-14 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

The Public Services and Facilities Element addresses the provision of various types of infrastructure in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area including: general utilities, water distribution, sewers, storm drainage, street lighting and solid waste.

2.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan provides public services and facilities goals and policies in five areas:

General utility services,

Water distribution,

Sewer services,

Street lighting, and

Solid waste removal

The following is a brief overview of these focus areas as described by the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

General Utility Services Public utility services (electricity, water, sewer, street lighting, and solid waste removal) in the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area are provided by a variety of public agencies and private companies. Although the fees charged for the financing of new facilities and their operation varies substantially in different utility areas, there is an increasing trend to require new development to be responsible for financing of the new or expanded services.

Electric power supply and distribution for the entire planning area is furnished by Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Natural gas is supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and by Southern California Gas Company.

Telephone service is supplied to the entire Metropolitan Bakersfield area by several companies.

Cable TV service is provided to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area by Cox Cable, Time-Warner and Bright House Networks under the terms of city and county franchises regulating installation and service charges.

2.7-1 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Water Distribution1 Numerous entities are involved in the management of water supplies in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area including urban water purveyors, agricultural-oriented water districts and water storage districts. Complex relationships exist between many of these entities as water is delivered and used throughout the area. These relationships greatly influence water use and water availability as land uses change from agricultural to urban through the planning horizon of the General Plan.

The various types of entities involved in the management of water supplies and demands within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are briefly described below. These entities have been grouped into two categories: Water Storage Districts and Water Suppliers and Purveyors.

Water Storage Entities Water storage entities basically serve as storehouses for water, storing water that comes from the Kern River and other sources in underground aquifers. This allows water to be stored or “banked” for future use, and helps ensure that water is available during dry times of the year when surface flows are low but demand for water is high.

Water storage entities play an important role in the management of water supplies within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Although they perform an important function in the overall water system, water storage entities do not generally supply water directly to end users.

The following water storage entities operate in the planning area (see Figure 2.7.1-1 Water Storage Entities).

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District

Buena Vista Water Storage District

North Kern Water Storage District

Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District

Kern Water Bank: This authority operates water banking activities on behalf of its member units. The Kern Water Bank is a project area within the Kern River Fan that recharges and recovers groundwater.

1 The information contained under Water Distribution was summarized from the Existing Water Supply and Demand Conditions Report prepared by Tully & Young, April 2008.

APRIL 2009 2.7-2 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.7.1-1 WATER STORAGE ENTITIES

2.7-3 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Water Suppliers and Purveyors Water suppliers and purveyors, including those that provide water for municipal and industrial as well as agricultural uses within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area include the following. As shown, some supply agricultural customers (farms) while others serve urban uses. A few suppliers serve both.

California Water Service Company (Cal Water) – Urban purveyor

Cawelo Water District – Agricultural supplier

City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department – Agricultural supplier, urban wholesale supplier and urban purveyor

East Niles Community Services District (ENCSD) – Urban purveyor

Kern County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 (KCWA ID4) – Agricultural supplier and urban wholesale supplier

Kern Delta Water District (KDWD) – Agricultural supplier

North of the River Municipal Water District (NORMWD) – Urban purveyor

Oildale Mutual Water Company (OMWC) – Urban purveyor

Vaughn Mutual Water Service Company (VMWC) – Urban purveyor

The largest urban water purveyors in the planning area (based on the amount of water supplied) are shown below:

Cal Water 76,338 acre-feet/year

City of Bakersfield WRD 38,697 acre-feet/year

VMWC 10,777 acre-feet/year

ENCSD 9,715 acre-feet/year

Oildale 7,643 acre-feet/year

NORMWD 2,300 acre-feet/year

Kern Delta Water District is the largest in the Metro Area by area and by amount of water served (see Figure 2.7.1-2 Water Supplier and Purveyor Service Areas).

APRIL 2009 2.7-4 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.7.1-2 WATER SUPPLIER AND PURVEYOR SERVICE AREAS

2.7-5 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Water use in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area can generally be categorized as either urban or agricultural. The following describes existing water uses, estimated future water demand, and the water supplies used to meet existing and future needs.

Urban Water Use There are six urban water purveyors within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Of these, four serve water directly to municipal and industrial customers inside the City of Bakersfield’s city limits: California Water Service Company, the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department, East Niles Community Services District, and Vaughn Mutual Water Company.

The other two urban purveyors—Oildale Mutual Water Company and North of the River Municipal Water District--serve municipal and industrial customers outside of the City Bakersfield but within the planning area.

Water supplies available to the urban water purveyors in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area generally come from three sources:

Groundwater,

Kern River Water, and

Treated surface water from KCWA ID4

Although KCWA ID4 is a water wholesaler to many of the urban purveyors and does not serve water directly to municipal and industrial customers, it supplies water to four of the six urban retail water agencies. Due to the important role the KCWA ID4 water supplies play in the provision of urban water, the sources of KCWA ID4’s water supplies are summarized below:

State Water Project Table A Entitlement Water

Previously Banked Groundwater

Central Valley Project Section 215 Surplus Water

Kern River Water (by exchange)

Sources of water for each of the six urban purveyors are identified in Table 2.7.1-1.

APRIL 2009 2.7-6 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

TABLE 2.7.1-1 WATER SOURCES FOR URBAN WATER PURVEYORS IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

Urban Water Purveyor Water Sources 187 Groundwater Wells Kern River water by contracts from City of California Water Service Company (Cal Water) Bakersfield State Water Project water through KCWA ID4 50 Groundwater Wells City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department State Water Project water through KCWA ID4 Kern River through City wholesale supply

7 Groundwater Wells East Niles Community Services District (ENCSD) State Water Project Water thru KCWA ID4

Groundwater Wells

State Water Project from KCWA ID4 - A portion of North of the River Municipal Water District this water was supplied to the Oildale Mutual Water (NORMWD) Company

Surface Water from KCWA ID4

Groundwater Wells Oildale Mutual Water Company (OMWC) Surface Water from KCWA ID4 via contract with North of the River Municipal Water District Vaughn Mutual Water Service Company (VMWC) 12 Groundwater Wells Source: Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Update, Existing Water Supply and Demand Conditions, April 2008.

Agricultural Water Use Lands outside of the service areas of the urban water purveyors are largely agricultural. Most of these agricultural uses are served by groundwater through private wells. A limited number of agricultural lands receive Kern River, CVP and SWP water through various entities.

There are some agricultural water uses within the service areas of some of the urban water purveyors in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. According to Kern County’s 2005 crop data, approximately 14,000 acres within the urban purveyors’ service areas are devoted to

2.7-7 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

agricultural land uses. This is significant because agricultural water demands are not accounted for in any of the Urban Water Management Plans for the urban water purveyors.2

Sewer Services Metropolitan Bakersfield is served by five major wastewater treatment facilities (see Figure 2.7.1-3 Wastewater Treatment Plants):

City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 2;

City of Bakersfield Treatment Plant No. 3;

North of River Sanitary District (NORSD) plant, located south of Seventh Standard Road;

Kern Sanitation Authority (KSA) treatment plant, located on Mount Vernon Road; and,

Lamont Public Utility District plant, located just south of Bear Mountain Road, which is located outside the planning area boundary. (Note the Lamont PUD treatment plant is outside the planning area, but the area it serves is inside the planning area boundary.)

Urban development in the unincorporated western portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is served by County Service Area 71 (CSA 71). The East Niles Community Services District provides sewer services in the eastern part of Metropolitan Bakersfield, but uses a percentage of the treatment capacity of the City’s Plant No. 2.

There are also several small, temporary treatment facilities in the Rosedale area north of the Kern River and west of NORSD's service area boundaries. Much of this area is developed using on-site septic tanks, as is a portion of the northeast (Rio Bravo) area of the City. Some of the developed Rio Bravo area is also sewered to small, community-level septic systems.

Several sanitary districts maintain or contract for maintenance of sewer collection systems in the unincorporated metropolitan area, discharging their sewage to the City's wastewater treatment and disposal facilities.

2 Refer to the Existing Water Supply and Demand Conditions Report prepared by Tully & Young, April 2008 for information regarding agricultural water suppliers and water sources. See Appendix A for the full report.

APRIL 2009 2.7-8 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.7.1-3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

2.7-9 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Street Lighting Street lighting is provided in nearly all developed areas of the City of Bakersfield. Lighting which is not provided by the City is provided either by other governmental agencies or private ownership. As an example of the former, Caltrans provides lighting along state highways, freeways, and associated facilities. Other agencies, such as school districts and airport districts, provide lighting for their facilities.

Lighting in the planning area outside of the incorporated City is similarly provided, with the County being the principal operating agency instead of the City. The County provides these services through a number of County Service Areas (CSAs) and Public Utility Districts. The CSAs range in size from a few blocks to areas of several square miles.

Lighting in Metropolitan Bakersfield which is privately owned includes subdivisions, mobile home parks, and private businesses with the provider being a homeowners association, landlord, or business. Privately owned lighting represents a small fraction of the lighting within the planning area.

Solid Waste Solid waste collection services (residential and commercial) are provided in the planning area by the City Sanitation Division and contracted private haulers and in the unincorporated area by a County franchise hauler. Solid waste generated in the area is disposed of in County-operated landfills.

The Bena Landfill is the primary landfill serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The Bena landfill is located approximately 18 miles east of Bakersfield and has a projected 65- 75 year lifespan with a capacity of 70 million cubic yards (see Figure 2.7.1-4 Waste Facilities).

The Mount Vernon Greenwaste Recycling Facility, located on Mount Vernon Road, acts as a secondary facility and helps to divert greenwaste from the Bena Landfill and recycle it into compost and mulch (see Figure 2.7.1-4 Waste Facilities). There are plans to convert this facility into a full-service transfer station.

APRIL 2009 2.7-10 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

FIGURE 2.7.1-4 WASTE FACILITIES

2.7-11 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

2.7.2 ISSUES Implementation of basic public services and facilities within the Metropolitan Bakersfield areas relies on the goals and policies identified in the General Plan. Goals and policies should be clear and concise to adequately relate the intent of the City and County vision for the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning areas.

Specific issues have been identified that inhibit implementation of the public services and facilities goals for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and need to be further addressed by the General Plan Update. These issues were derived from public input received through the May 2007 Phase I Town Hall Meetings, from various surveys conducted in conjunction with the KernCOG Regional Blueprint process, and from City of Bakersfield and Kern County staff.

The following issues are discussed in this section:

Water

Sewage Treatment

Storm Drainage

Solid Waste

An evaluation of each issue relative to the existing General Plan policies was conducted and specific challenges were identified. These challenges must be addressed through the General Plan Update process to better achieve the basic safety principles and the City and County’s vision for the General Plan Public Services and Facilites Element. Direction on what changes should be made to the General Plan is provided.

Issue: Water Complex relationships exist between numerous entities involved in the management of water supplies throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield. The various types of entities involved include urban water purveyors and agriculture-oriented water districts.

These entities provide water to both urban and agricultural users throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield and the relationships between these various entities greatly influence water use and availability in the planning area.

The following issues are also integral to the supply of water available to Metropolitan Bakersfield.

Integration of Land Use and Water Supply Planning It will be important to coordinate planned future land uses, including agricultural land uses, in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area with projected water demands. Water demand projections are commonly based on population estimates without regard to future land use

APRIL 2009 2.7-12 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

characteristics. Basing projections using planned land uses will provide a more representative demand, especially as land use characteristics may vary in different areas of the planning area.

In addition to future urban growth, shifts in the types of crops grown in the Bakersfield area could affect water demands if farmers shift to crops that require either more or less water than those being grown today.

Water demands are also anticipated to change as urban areas expand and replace agricultural acreage.

Compatibility of urban uses with areas set aside for water-related uses (such as groundwater recharge) must also be addressed as urban areas expand.

Groundwater Supplies Management of groundwater resources throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, including groundwater banking operations, will be important in meeting future water demands. It will be important to understand potential impacts on groundwater supplies as urban land uses expand into historically agricultural areas and the use of surface water from the Kern River is increased to meet future urban demands.

Water Conservation It will be important to establish water conservation programs to ensure sufficient water supplies for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. Requirements for new construction should be addressed regarding the installation of water conserving fixtures and water-conserving landscapes.

Water and Wastewater Treatment/Recycled Water Use As urban land uses expand in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, additional water treatment capacity will be needed to meet growing demands. Although planning for additional capacity has already begun, it will be important to understand how this will occur as development within the planning area proceeds.

At the current time, treated wastewater is used to serve non-consumable agricultural crops within and outside the Metropolitan Bakersfield areas. The City of Bakersfield also has a pilot project to use treated wastewater for landscape irrigation. The practices should be incorporated into planning for the future to increase the use of reclaimed water.

Water Supply Infrastructure As urban areas expand, it will be important to understand and identify new infrastructure requirements for delivering treated water supplies throughout the Metropolitan Bakersfield areas as well as identifying needed upgrades to components of existing deliver systems.

2.7-13 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Energy Energy costs are an important consideration in water supply planning as they affect water treatment, water delivery, groundwater pumping, and wastewater treatment costs. The relationship between rising energy costs and supplying new water to new urban areas should be analyzed in order to understand impacts to existing and future water users.

Influencing Factors on Availability of Water Supply Sources Kern River Supplies Water from the Kern River is an important water supply resource for urban and agricultural land uses within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. In addition to diversions of the Kern River water supplies to various purveyors and water storage districts, ongoing State Water Regional Control Board actions and judicial proceedings may have an impact on the amount of water from the Kern River that will be available for use in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

State Water Project (SWP) Supplies SWP supplies are undergoing intense scrutiny as concerns about water quality and endangered species are resulting in cutbacks in exports from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. The reliability of these supplies on an annual basis is in question and will impact water purveyors and storage districts that rely upon these supplies. The Department of Water Resources recently published a Draft SWP Delivery Reliability Report (December 2007), which provides estimates of reliability into the near future. Understanding and addressing these reliability constraints will be important factors in understanding and planning for the availability to meeting future, as well as current, demands.

Central Valley Project (CVP) Supplies CVP supplies emanating from the San Joaquin River are also undergoing some modifications. The San Joaquin River Settlement (derived from litigation associated with the original construction of Friant Dam) will change the amount and reliability of water from the CVP. These changes may impact agricultural deliveries within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area as well as “215 deliveries” associated with some storage districts and their retail sales to purveyors.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Water? The General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element contains the following policies pertaining to water:

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to water. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

APRIL 2009 2.7-14 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Public Facilities-Water Policy 1: Reach agreement regarding mutually beneficial improvements in domestic water service and distribution facilities as required to improve overall metropolitan water service capabilities (I-1, I-2).

Public Facilities-Water Policy 2: Continue to provide domestic water facilities which are contributed directly by developers, through development and/or availability fees.

Public Facilities-Water Policy 3: Require that all new development proposals have an adequate water supply available (I-3, I-4).

The General Plan also contains goals and policies throughout other elements of the document that address water, primarily through conservation efforts, as follows:

Conservation-Water Policy 1: Develop and maintain facilities for groundwater recharge in the planning area (I-1, I-2).

Conservation-Water Policy 2: Minimize the loss of water which could otherwise be utilized for groundwater recharge purposes and benefit planning area groundwater aquifers from diversion to locations outside the area (I-3).

Conservation-Water Policy 3: Support programs to convey water from other than San Joaquin Valley basin sources to the planning area (I-4).

Conservation-Water Policy 4: Support programs and policies which assure continuance or augmentation of Kern River surface water supplies (I-4).

Conservation-Water Policy 5: Work towards resolving the problem of groundwater resource deficiencies in the upland portions of the planning area (I-5, I- 6).

Conservation-Water Policy 6: Protect planning area groundwater resources from further quality degradation (I-7).

Conservation-Water Policy 7: Provide substitute or supplemental water resources to areas already impacted by groundwater quality degradation by supporting facilities construction for surface water diversions (I-8).

Conservation-Water Policy 8: Consider each proposal for water resource usage within the context of total planning area needs and priorities--major

2.7-15 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

incremental water transport, groundwater recharge, flood control, recreational needs, riparian habitat preservation and conservation (I-9).

Conservation-Water Policy 9: Encourage and implement water conservation measures and programs (I-11).

Challenges Current General Plan policies do not address compatibility issues between urban land uses and water banks or treatment facilities.

New issues relating to the Kern River, State Water Project and Central Valley Project water supplies have developed that could affect the availability of water supplies. These issues are not addressed in the existing policies.

Current policies do not encourage use of recycled water for “reclaimed” water uses, including landscape irrigation.

Little direction is provided on water conservation efforts.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorporate polices that will help manage impacts on groundwater supplies as urban land uses expand into historically agricultural areas and use of surface water from the Kern River is increased, upon availability, to meet future urban demands.

2. Preserve and maintain groundwater banking and recharge areas to reduce overdraft, including providing for some buffer areas surrounding water banks.

3. Incorporate policies that recognize and address the reliability of the availability of Kern River, SWP and CVP water supplies.

4. Coordinate General Plan policies and measures with all Urban Water Management Plans in the planning area.

5. Incorporate policies that address and encourage additional water treatment capacity within Metropolitan Bakersfield.

6. Include measures to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use in larger grassy areas such as parks and golf courses.

7. Encourage the allowance of wastewater treated to standards to be used for landscape irrigation and other reclaimed water uses.

APRIL 2009 2.7-16 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

8. Include policies to encourage water conservation and water efficiency, including the use of recycled water and incentives for homeowners to replace water-intensive landscaping with drought tolerant plants, to stretch out existing water supplies.

Sewage Treatment Growth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area will require expansion of sewer services to serve the demands of additional urban development.

Urban growth in the northern, industrializing areas of Oildale is dependent upon NORSD plant expansion.

Continued urban growth to the northeast will be dependent upon solutions to provide sewer either directly to Plant No. 2 or through the East Niles system.3

Community growth to the southwest and south will not be constrained by sewage disposal assuming continued, appropriately timed expansion of city wastewater treatment facilities, including Treatment Plant No. 3. It may be desirable, depending upon the timing with which growth actually occurs within the planning area, to consider the siting and construction of a new Treatment Plant No. 4 at a site west of Plant No. 3. The most desirable location of such a site, if required, can only be determined after actual growth patterns relative to trunk sewer system and Plant No. 3 become evident.

Upgrades that have recently been completed to accommodate sewer treatment include an expansion to the City’s Treatment Plant No. 3 to a capacity of 32 MGD. As part of the expansion, a pilot project lead by a joint public/private partnership involving the City of Bakersfield, California Water Service Company and the County of Kern has constructed a state of the art water treatment plant. This treatment plant is planned to include tertiary treatment of water for use in agricultural and landscaping applications.

The City’s Treatment Plant No. 2 is currently flowing at 16 MGD and has a design capacity of 25 MGD. The NORSD treatment plant and the KSA treatment plant are currently flowing at 5 MGD and 4 MGD, respectively, with design capacities of 7.5 MGD and 6.6 MGD, respectively.

Additional major trunk sewers will also be required to serve the projected urban growth.

While adequate capacity exists at the plants to serve the existing population, the existing wastewater treatment facilities must be expanded to accommodate the projected growth. The provision of adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the planning area is essential to protect the health of residents, permit planned urban densities, and protect the groundwater resource. Funding of these improvements will be essential for improvements to keep pace with development.

3 A new 51-inch sewer interceptor line is planned to intercept the sewage flow from the northeast portion of the City and carry it to Treatment Plant No. 2.

2.7-17 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Sewer Treatment? The General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element contains the following policies pertaining to sewer treatment:

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to sewer treatment. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Public Facilities-Sewer Policy 1: Effect the consolidated collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from all urban development within the metropolitan area, discouraging the creation or expansion of separate systems and encouraging the consolidation and interconnection of existing separate systems (I-1, I-2, I-3).

Public Facilities-Sewer Policy 2: Define benefit-related areas in which appropriate development fees will be assessed or assessment districts will be established to defray the costs of the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities necessary to serve such areas (I-4, I-5).

Public Facilities-Sewer Policy 3: Consider utilization of capital improvement funds and assessment district monies to construct sewer trunk lines consistent with development timing (I-5).

Challenges Current General Plan policies do no address sewer treatment in unincorporated areas or areas where community treatment facilities are not available.

Current policies do not provide direction on resolving discrepancies between City and County standards for on-site sewer service.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Prevent the use of individual septic systems within the Metropolitan area (i.e. septic tanks) to prevent public health hazards with exceptions for limited areas.

2. Direct development to areas where infrastructure is available, and away from areas which do not have infrastructure or are not planned to have infrastructure at the time development will take place.

APRIL 2009 2.7-18 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

3. Support agreements between the City and other entities that provide wastewater management to the Metropolitan area which support infrastructure delivery systems and services.

4. Encourage alternative uses for wastewater such as tertiary treatment of the water for use in agricultural and landscaping irrigation.

Storm Drainage Both the City of Bakersfield and Kern County have adopted several planned drainage areas for which master storm drain system plans have been developed and in which area-specific, benefit-related development fees are charged to fund construction of major drainage facilities. This is essential for the planning area due to the fact that adequate flood protection is essential to the safety and welfare of area residents and necessary for the ultimate development of the General Plan.

Kern County typically requires developing sites to provide for their own on-site retention or show that existing off-site facilities have sufficient capacity to carry the additional runoff. This policy applies to all new development, including individual, single-family lots. One result of this policy is the proliferation of isolated drainage basins.

City of Bakersfield policy is to accept runoff into the City’s drainage facilities as long as adequate facilities are in place. Where off-site facilities are not in place, on-site retention is allowed. However, on-site retention basins must designed to integrate into future off-site facilities once constructed as the City discourages the proliferation of multiple, isolated basins.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Storm Drainage? The General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element contains the following policies pertaining to storm drainage:

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to storm drainage. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Public Facilities-Storm Drain Policy 1: Develop drainage programs which will serve all currently developed portions of the planning area that are not now served by adequate storm drainage systems (I-1, I-2, I-3).

Public Facilities-Storm Drain Policy 2: The city and county should pursue individual drainage plans where they are most needed (I-2, I-3, I-4).

2.7-19 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Public Facilities-Storm Drain Policy 3: Investigate the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan based on the proposed growth in the planning area (I-5).

Challenges The policies do not provide clear direction on provision of on-site storm drainage in unincorporated areas or areas where off-site facilities are not available. This is resulting in discrepancies between City and County policy.

Policies do not integrate issues relating to flood management.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Incorportate policies that ensure that the City of Bakersfield and Kern County are coordinating their efforts towards storm drainage for the Metropolitan area.

2. Create consistency between City and County standards that allow for on-site retention of storm water if off-site facilities are not available.

3. Include policy/action to prepare a comprehensive storm drainage plan to accommodate both existing and future growth.

4. Include policies directing storm drainage requirements on flood management as they relate to protection from major flooding.

Solid Waste The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan adresses the following issues with respect to solid waste disposal:

Resource recovery, in conjunction with landfill usage, is required by state and federal government agencies.

The Bena Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the needs of the planning area.

Siting of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Transfer Station.

It is expected that, despite efforts to reduce waste through recycling and reuse, future growth will generate an increased volume of solid waste.

While the Bena Landfill is the primary landfill serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, the Mount Vernon Greenwaste Recycling Facility, located on Mount Vernon Road, acts as a secondary facility and helps to divert greenwaste from the Bena Landfill and recycle it into compost and mulch.

There are plans to convert the Mount Vernon facility into a full-service transfer station. Having a full-service station located in town would result in less travel for garbage trucks,

APRIL 2009 2.7-20 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

which would no longer need to travel 18 miles east of Bakersfield to the Bena landfill. The decrease in the amount of vehicle miles traveled would also reduce emissions related to truck traffic.

How Does The General Plan Currently Address Solid Waste? The General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element contains the following policies pertaining to solid waste:

The policies identified below are not an exhaustive list of applicable policies. Rather, they are representative of the existing policies contained in the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in relation to storm drainage. The General Plan also includes a number of implementation measures that provide further direction on the necessary actions to implement policies. See the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for a complete list of existing General Plan policies and implementation measures.

Public Facilities-Solid Waste Policy 1: Comply with, and update as required, the adopted county solid waste management plan (I-1, I-2, I-3, I- 4).

Public Facilities-Solid Waste Policy 2: A designated site for solid waste disposal or large transfer station facilities (Solid Waste Facility Sites: P- SW) shall be protected from encroachment of incompatible land uses and intensive urban development. General Plan map code designations which may be compatible for properties adjacent to or near solid waste facilities include the following: Public Facilities; Light Industrial; Service Industrial; Heavy Industrial; Intensive Agriculture; Extensive Agriculture; Mineral and Petroleum.

Other land use map code designations may be compatible subject to project-specific CEQA evaluation. Intensive residential uses, community care facilities, schools, hospitals, recreational vehicle parks and other uses involving sensitive populations, concentrations of people and other activities will usually be incompatible adjacent to or near solid waste facilities.

When considering a land use application next to a designated solid waste facility site, the following issues will be considered through the CEQA process when determining compatibility;

2.7-21 APRIL 2009 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

a. Public Services-Solid Waste Policy 2.a:Land use compatibility based on the character and intensity of use;

b. Public Services-Solid Waste Policy 2.b:Potential for groundwater contamination;

c. Public Services-Solid Waste Policy 2.c:Potential for methane gas migration;

d. Public Services-Solid Waste Policy 2.d:Operational effects of the solid waste facility to the proposed land use application including traffic, odor, noise, vectors, and dust; and

e. County Public Services-Solid Waste Policy 2.e: Other issues relevant to the specific proposal and as determined through the environmental and public hearing review process.

Challenges The policies do not address plans for expanding the Mount Vernon Greenwaste Facility, or other facilities, to expand recycling and waste disposal options in Metropolitan Bakersfield.

Locations for expanded and future facilities are not identified.

The General Plan does not include plans for transfer stations.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Include policies that ensure the provision of adequate solid waste disposal services to meet the demand for these services in the planning area and develop, as feasible, resource recovery and recycling systems.

2. Incoporate policies addressing expanded and future facilities, particularly as they relate to waste diversion practices.

3. Incorporate policies that protect existing and future designated solid waste sites from encroachment of incompatible land uses.

4. Incoporate policies to address the siting of transfer stations and include policies to buffer facilities.

APRIL 2009 2.7-22

3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

This chapter discusses the other influences on the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that are not directly covered in the 2002 General Plan yet have an effect on the planning area. These other influences include the Regional San Joaquin Valley Blueprint process, capital improvement programs, and development impact fees.

The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint was not covered by the 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan because the process was initiated subsequent to the adoption of the 2002 General Plan and was therefore not addressed.

The 2002 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan does not have an Element that is specifically devoted to capital improvement programs or development impact fees. Polices related to fee programs, including the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) mitigation fee, are found throughout the 2002 General Plan in a number of elements, including Circulation, Conservation, Public Services and Facilities, and Public Safety.

These three issues are discussed further below. Recommendations for changes to the General Plan follow the discussion of issues.

Issue: San Joaquin Valley Blueprint The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint is a comprehensive visioning process that covers the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Kern). The Blueprint process is intended to engage policymakers and citizens to create a regional vision of growth for the 21st century.

The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) acts as the lead agency and facilitator for preparing the local Blueprint process in Kern County. The purpose of the Blueprint is to provide a cohesive framework that defines and offers alternative solutions to growth-related issues in the San Joaquin Valley region. The planning process involves a comprehensive overview of transportation, housing, land use, economic development and the environment to produce a preferred growth scenario to the year 2050. The Blueprint will not supersede a local jurisdiction’s land use authority, but is intended to provide various land use guidelines to improve the quality of life in the region by using a “toolbox” of implementation measures. It is, however, anticipated that some state and/or federal funding sources may be tied to a local agencies’ consistency with the Blueprint Plan.

Kern COG is using a “bottom up” process that relies on public outreach and participation at the local level. Phase I Town Hall Meetings and surveys were conducted in May 2007 to obtain the public’s input.1 Comments received at these workshops have been summarized

1 These meetings also served to obtain public input for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update.

3.0-1 APRIL 2009 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFTDRAFT EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS, SETTING, CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS AND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

in the Final Public Outreach Issues Report, prepared for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update.

Phase II Town Hall Meetings were conducted in January and February 2008. These meetings considered growth scenarios for each sub-region of Kern County and determined a set of land use, transportation and environmental goals. These goals helped develop a vision statement for future growth and a set of land use guiding principles consistent with the preferred growth scenario. Implementation strategies and measurable objectives to achieve the vision were also developed in the process.

Kern COG released the Kern Regional Blueprint Program Final Draft in November 2008. The following principles were identified in the Blueprint Program:

Conserve energy and natural resources and develop alternatives

Provide adequate and equitable services

Enhance economic vitality

Provide a variety of housing choices

Use and improve existing community assets and infrastructure

Use compact, efficient development and/or mixed use land uses where appropriate

Provide a variety of transportation choices

Conserve undeveloped land and spaces

Increase civic and public engagement

Kern COG will continue to work with stakeholders to develop a “toolbox” for implementation of these guiding principles. Ultimately, the products of the Blueprint process are intended for use by local governments in the San Joaquin Valley. In particular, the principles and implementation strategies may be used in the preparation of general plans and future amendments to these plans.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan Consider the land use guiding principles and implementation strategies of the Blueprint as part of the General Plan’s policies and action items.

Issue: Capital Improvement Funding As the City and County update the General Plan for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and determine the type and extent of growth for which to plan, the City and County must consider the infrastructure needed to support the planned growth and the financing needed

APRIL 2009 3.0-2 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

to pay for the projects. The City of Bakersfield and Kern County can require new development to install infrastructure that supports the specific development. However, for infrastructure projects with a wider community benefit that are beyond the responsibility of an individual project or developer to provide,2 it is necessary to identify funding for improvements or upgrades through additional methods other than development impact fees.

Both the City and County have adopted capital facilities plans that lay out planned public facilities construction and their funding. The following sections describe each agency’s capital planning.

City of Bakersfield The City of Bakersfield adopted its current Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in June, 2007 as part the City’s 2007-2008 budget. The CIP identifies important capital improvement needs in the amount of $548.4 million and allocates available funds for capital improvement projects for the period 2007-2012. The projects covered in the CIP include: roads, water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, parks and trails, airport, police and fire facilities.

The City of Bakersfield CIP emphasizes six broad initiatives:

Public Safety;

Enhancing the City’s transportation network;

Neighborhood revitalization and development;

Support of new growth and development;

Maintenance and construction of new City facilities; and,

Implementation of these initiatives without impacting previously approved capital projects.

Funding sources for the City’s CIP include:

Sales Tax,

State Gas Tax,

State And Federal Grants,

User Fees,

2 These improvements may include wastewater treatment plant expansion, arterial road construction, or improvements that benefit mainly existing developed areas including upgrades to water and sewer lines.

3.0-3 APRIL 2009 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFTDRAFT EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS, SETTING, CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS AND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Special Assessments,

Park Improvement Fund (From Park Impact Fees),

Transportation Development Impact Fees,

Public Financing Authority Bond Funds (Local Obligation Revenue Bonds),

Proceeds From Property Sales,

Direct Developer Participation,3

Redevelopment Area Funds and

Other Miscellaneous sources

The City’s CIP does not list any unfunded projects. However, most of the funding sources identified are projections. The actual budgeted amounts in any given year are subject to various factors including availability due to budgetary constraints and legislative priorities (state and federal grants) or economic conditions (sales taxes, user and impact fees).

Kern County Kern County adopted its current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in September 2007, The CIP analyzes the cost of public facilities needed for projected growth through the year 2030 in the following categories:

Countywide Public Protection;

Sheriff Patrol and investigation;

Library;

Animal Control;

Park;

Fire;

Waste Management;

Public Health;

General Government.

3 In “Direct Developer Participation,” developers build major infrastructure using their own financing and are reimbursed later or given a credit against the payment of future fees.

APRIL 2009 3.0-4 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Although the County’s CIP addresses facilities county-wide, a significant portion of the budget involves facilities serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The CIP is not organized according to regions.

The County’s CIP does not address sewer or transportation, which are the subject of separate master plans with their own financing plans. Due to the regional nature of traffic impacts, an analysis of roadway costs to serve new growth was considered to be beyond the scope of the County’s CIP, and this issue is therefore not included.

The funding sources identified in the County’s CIP are fundamentally the same as those in the City of Bakersfield’s CIP including:

Sales Tax,

State Gas Tax,

State And Federal Grants,

User Fees,

Special Assessments,

Park Improvement Fund (From Park Impact Fees) Transportation Development Impact Fees, Public Financing Authority Bond Funds (Local Obligation Revenue Bonds),

Proceeds From Property Sales,

Direct Developer Participation,

Redevelopment Area Funds, And

Other Miscellaneous sources

Capital Improvement Programs are essential to the construction of public facilities within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and the continued growth within Metropolitan Bakersfield may result in additional need for public facilities. The differences between the City of Bakersfield and Kern County Capital Improvement Programs should be addressed to improve provision of services to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area and “level the playing field” between the City and County fees, to the extent feasible. Following are some of the issues that the City and County could better coordinate:

The City and County do not adopt their CIP’s as a joint effort for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

The County’s CIP addresses facilities county-wide, but a large portion of the budget involves facilities serving the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. However, the County

3.0-5 APRIL 2009 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFTDRAFT EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS, SETTING, CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS AND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

CIP is not organized according to regions, and it difficult to determine which facilities are specifically for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

The County’s CIP does not address transportation or sewer. Sewer and sewage treatment are subject to separate master plans. Due to the regional nature of traffic impacts, an analysis of roadway costs to serve new growth was considered to be beyond the scope of the County’s CIP.

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Investigate the feasibility of providing for a coordinated City/County CIP for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

2. Include policies and implementing measures designed to provide the funding necessary for community infrastructure projects.

3. Coordinate funding policies and measures with its various infrastructure plans, including the CIP, and master plans for specific infrastructure such as water, sewer and storm drainage.

Issue: Development Impact Fees Development Impact Fees have been and continue to be an indispensable component of infrastructure financing for cities, counties and special districts. Since the early 1980’s, impact fees have been used to fund the construction of a wide variety of public facilities including schools, roads, water and wastewater, parks, public safety and many other categories of infrastructure. The premise has always been that new development should pay its proportionate share when it comes to providing the basic capital facilities needed to accommodate growth—the collection of fees fulfills this premise.

Both the City of Bakersfield and Kern County have adopted impact fee programs for transportation, parks, sewers, and habitat conservation.

The County is currently (November 2008) in the process of evaluating the potential of a comprehensive impact fee program that may include the following categories (these are the same categories identified in the County’s CIP):

Countywide Public Protection;

Sheriff Patrol and investigation;

Library;

Animal Control;

Park;

Fire;

APRIL 2009 3.0-6 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Waste Management;

Public Health;

General Government.

Table 3.1-1 compares current City and County development impact fees for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area in similar facility categories.

TABLE 3.1-1 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND KERN COUNTY DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES

Facility Category City of Bakersfield Kern County1 Transportation Metropolitan Core Area2 Phase III Fees as of 2/27/09 Single Family Home $3,523 $4,905 Multiple Family Home $1,691 $2,354 Office Commercial Under 100,000 sq. ft. $65 per ADT2 $59 per ADT3 100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft. $77 per ADT $78 per ADT 200,000 sq. ft. and over $87 per ADT $88 per ADT Retail Commercial Under 10,000 sq. ft. $33 per ADT $30 per ADT 100,000 – 49,999 sq. ft. $53 per ADT $49 per ADT 50,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. $75 per ADT $67 per ADT 100,000 sq. ft. and over Determined by Traffic Study Determined by Traffic Study Heavy/Service Industrial and $89 per ADT $82 per ADT Light Industrial Metropolitan Non-Core Area Phase III Fees as of 2/27/09 with additional

mitigation Single Family Home $7,066 $9,553 $12,958 Multiple Family Home $3,391 $6,219 Office Commercial Under 100,000 sq. ft. $131 per ADT2 $156 per ADT $120 per ADT 100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft. $155 per ADT $182 per ADT $171 per ADT 200,000 sq. ft. and over $174 per ADT $203 per ADT $199 per ADT

3.0-7 APRIL 2009 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFTDRAFT EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS, SETTING, CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS AND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Facility Category City of Bakersfield Kern County1 Retail Commercial Under 10,000 sq. ft. $67 per ADT $69 per ADT $64 per ADT 100,000 – 49,999 sq. ft. $106 per ADT $109 per ADT $129 per ADT 50,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. $149 per ADT $153 per ADT $136 per ADT 100,000 sq. ft. and over Determined by Determined by Determined by Traffic Traffic Study Traffic Study Study Heavy/Service Industrial $180 per ADT $355 per ADT $168 per ADT Light Industrial $180 per ADT $230 per ADT $168 per ADT Sewer3 Fees as of 2/27/09 County Service Area No.715 PSA 1: $1,476 PSA 2: $3,400 PSA 3: $871 PSA:4: $662 PSA 5: $1,226 North of the River S.D. Connection Fee for treatment capacity: Single Family Home $3,400 $3,655 Service Area A: $684 Service Area B: $1,158 East Niles CSD $1,437 Kern Sanitation Authority: $715 Lamont PUD $1,2805 $4,7756 Multiple Family Home $2,164 (1 bathroom) Multiple Family Home $2,448 (2 or more bathrooms)

APRIL 2009 3.0-8 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Facility Category City of Bakersfield Kern County1

Commercial/Industrial All except food prep. & $155 per fixture unit markets requiring grease trap

Food prep. & markets requiring grease trap $310 per fixture unit Parks Fees as of 2/27/09 Residential Dwelling Unit $1,615 $1,6157 Schools8 Fees as of 10/30/08 Residential $2.24 per sq. ft. $2.24 per sq. ft. Commercial/Industrial $0.36 per sq. ft. $0.36 per sq. ft. Habitat Conservation Fees as of 2/27/09 $2,145 per gross acre $2,145 per gross acre Abbreviations: ADT = Average Annual Trips; PSA = Planned Sewer Area 1 The Kern County Development Impact Fees identified apply to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. 2 The Metropolitan Core Area is roughly bounded by Panorama Drive to the north, White Lane to the south, Fairfax Road to the east, and New Stine/Stine Road to the west 3 Sewer fees collected in the unincorporated area of Metropolitan Bakersfield are collected by individual agencies as noted. 4 Fees are for County trunkline improvements per equivalent single family dwelling unit (ESFD) in each County Service Area No. 71 - City Planned Sewer Areas and the North of the River (NOR) Sanitary District service areas A & B. The NOR Sanitary District treatment capacity connection fee ($3,755) is added to the indicated trunkline fee. In addition, a septic system abandonment fee of $2,020 per ESFD in all CSA No. 71 and NOR Sanitary District areas is applicable only to those permits which include the installation of a septic system. (note: the CSA NO. 71 City Planned Sewer Areas are delineated in the Future Plant 4 Feasibility Study by Parsons (9/2006)) 5 Special sewer connection fee for retirement of state loan to Lamont Public Utility District. This fee increases by about $50 each year due to the loan terms. 6 Sewer capacity charge 7 The County has not adopted a Metropolitan Bakersfield Area park impact fee. The listed park fee applies to the area within the boundaries of The North of the River (NOR) Recreation and Park District. 8 The minimum base fee for the City of Bakersfield is given, schools fees vary widely by district.

Phase IV Metropolitan Area Transportation Impact Fees The City of Bakersfield and Kern County agreed to undertake a joint process to update the transportation capital improvement plan and impact fee schedule for the Metropolitan Core and Non-core Areas. The Phase IV TIF process involved a comprehensive review of all regional road facilities that serve the Metropolitan Area. The process was open and collaborative, involving the development community through-out the two-year CIP and TIF program development period. After considerable public input and debate in several committee hearings, the City Council adopted the Phase IV TIF Nexus Report along with the recommended schedule of fees on Oct. 8 2008 (Resolution No. 167-08). The City Council adopted the Phase IV fees with the provision that during the first year in which the new fee schedule is in effect, that fees be reduced by 10% as an economic recovery measure. In addition, new home construction that was approved prior to the adoption of the new fee schedule would be subject to the current TIF per Table 3.1-1.

3.0-9 APRIL 2009 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFTDRAFT EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS, SETTING, CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS AND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

The County Board of Supervisors scheduled a Public Hearing on Oct. 28, 2008, to consider the Phase IV nexus report and the fee schedule adopted by the City of Bakersfield. However, the item was withdrawn from the agenda to allow County staff to address written concerns raised by homebuilders. It is anticipated that the Board of Supervisors will hear this item again in April of 2009.

Impact Fee Trends in California Over the past 20 years, impact fees imposed on new land development have become an increasingly important part of public infrastructure financing. The reason for this is due to a number of factors occurring during the past couple of decades that have steadily undercut the ability of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:

The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, that have limited the amount of property and other taxes available to cities and counties;

Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and

Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to shift the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and tax payers to new development. This funding shift has been partly accomplished by the imposition of development impact fees, also known as public facility fees and mitigation fees. A key advantage of this approach in an era of voter approval requirements is that impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption and are thus exempt from the requirements of Proposition 218. Of the 527 cities and counties in California, an estimated 300 charge traffic impact fees.

Development impact fees trace their origin to the dedications and exactions imposed on individual development projects to address their impacts on public facilities. The legislative and judicial history in California and other states illustrates how mitigation through exactions and in-lieu fees has been refined:

− Nollan v. California Coastal Commission established the rational nexus standard for impact fees,

− Dolan v. City Tigard (Oregon) requires the application of a reasonable relationship test; and

− Ehrlich v. Culver City validated the practice of imposing an in-lieu fee as mitigation for impacts caused by development.

The above-mentioned cases (two of which—Nollan and Dolan—were decided by the US Supreme Court) outlined the basic findings and procedures that found their way

APRIL 2009 3.0-10 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

into California’s impact fee law – Assembly Bill (AB)1600, adopted in 1987 as the Mitigation Impact Fee Act (the “Act”) to establish uniformity in the calculation of impact fees and to codify the court decisions that preceded it. In essence, the Act provides that the revenue from development impact fees can be used only for new and/or refurbished facilities that are necessary to serve new development, and may not be used to correct deficiencies in infrastructure that serve existing development.

The Act requires local governments to document the following when adopting an impact fee:

− Identify the purpose of the fee;

− Identify the use of fee revenues;

− Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development paying the fee;

− Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee; and

− Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee.

The Act also includes provisions for monitoring fee revenues and segregating them from other government funds so that they are used only for the capital improvements intended.

The basic premise of the Act (codified in Government Code Sec. 66000), is that the burden of the impact fees cannot total more than the actual cost of the public facility needed to serve the development paying the fee and that new development does not pay for public facilities that are needed by the existing population to maintain or improve upon the level of service provided by those facilities. Specifically, the Act requires that new development may not be burdened with the costs to improve facilities that may directly benefit existing population without the existing population paying its fair share of those costs.

Facility Deficiencies The fundamental requirement of impact fees – that the impact fee may not be used to directly improve the existing population’s level of service – frequently creates two dilemmas that often result in the collection of less money than is needed to provide adequate facilities.

In the first situation, existing facilities may be undersized to meet existing demand (for instance, a roadway may already be congested). Because the laws described above generally do not allow cities or counties to collect a fee to correct this type of existing deficiency, they are forced to seek funding elsewhere. In an era of tight municipal budgets, this money is often difficult or impossible to find. When new

3.0-11 APRIL 2009 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFTDRAFT EXISTING EXISTING CONDITIONS, SETTING, CONSTRAINTS CONSTRAINTS AND AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

development adds its burden to already strained facilities, the payment of fees for the new project’s fair share of the cost of improvements may still provides less money than is needed.

The second dilemma is the struggle to balance the need to collect fees with the needs of developers to provide homes at affordable prices and remain competitive with developers selling homes in nearby cities or regions. Developers often point to higher development impact fees as the “last straw” (in combination with rising land, material, and labor costs) that would make it impossible for their projects to be feasible. As a result, many cities and counties intentionally set fees lower than the level that would fully fund improvements—again, as with the problems noted above for existing deficiencies, these same agencies look to other sources to make up the shortfall. If no other sources of funding can be found, a deficit (the difference between the fees collected and the cost of the needed improvements) grows and becomes larger with every home or business that is built.

These two scenarios have played out in recent years in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area concerning traffic impact fees.

Even with regular increases in the traffic impact fee (TIF), from $2,197 per dwelling unit (DU) in 1999 to $7,066 per DU in 20074, the fee has difficulty keeping pace with the actual cost to provide improvements to impacted facilities. Part of the difficulty has been the need to update the fee to accurately reflect the rising costs of construction. The result has been ever-increasing congestion, particularly on regional roadways that have not benefited from fee revenues. This “under-mitigation” of the traffic impacts from new development has several potential consequences:

Deficiencies are compounded, congestion and delay become progressively worse with the costs of dealing with those conditions increasingly shifted to the future,

Gradual degradation of quality of life: air-quality impacts, ever-lengthening commute times, increased energy consumption,

Road improvement projects will require funding from alternative sources such as higher taxes or assessments (on all residents and property owners), shifting of funds from other governmental uses, increased borrowing from future gas tax revenues leading to deferred maintenance and degradation of the existing system,

Property values may decline as the area becomes less desirable, and

Public grows increasingly wary of new development which is perceived as the cause of their deteriorating quality of life.

4 Single family dwelling unit fee in the Metropolitan Non-Core Area

APRIL 2009 3.0-12 3.0 OTHER INFLUENCES ON METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

DRAFT EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT

Recommended Changes to the General Plan 1. Include policies requiring that fees should be set and adjusted as needed so that funds collected fully cover the cost of facilities to serve the growing population.

2. Facility standards to be maintained in accordance with adopted levels of service and that facilities are constructed as indicated in the fee programs.

3. Include policies stating the the fee programs of the City and County will be the same to promote a level playing field for facility financing and maximizing the benefit to future development.

3.0-13 APRIL 2009