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 singlefamily neighborhoods by allowing for a reduction in the densities from those permitted by the previous general plan. 2.1-1
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. 2.1-2
FIGURE 2.1.1-1 CENTERS AND RESOURCES 2.1-3
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: 2.1-4
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
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 usin g 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. 2.1-6
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
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 Cente r will likely be compris ed 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 cla rification 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. 2.1-8
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 change s 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
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 Genera l 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-1 1 ). 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. 2.1-10
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
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. 2.1-12
FIGURE 2.1.2-1A EXAMPLES OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 2.1-13
FIGURE 2.1.2-1B EXAMPLES OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 2.1-14
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
filtering outwards to lower densities, according to principles (I-1, I-6, I-8). the following 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 transitoriented development. 5. Incorporate policies to allow for exceptions to the existing thresholds of significance and reduce barriers to mixed-use and higher density development. 2.1-16
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, deadend 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: 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): 2.1-17
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. 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 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. 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). 2.1-18
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
Issue: Urban/Rural Interface Much of the developm ent 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 include: may occur when the proposed development is new residential or commercial 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: 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-1). 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) 2.1-20
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
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. 2.1-22
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 identified in the General Plan. specific plan may differ from those land use designations 2.1-23
FIGURE 2.1.2-2 SPECIFIC PLANS FOR RESCISSION 2.1-24
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
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: 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. Through joint City-County decision-making forums, continue to identify inconsistencies in urban services and concentrate efforts to be consistent. 2.1-26
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 Gener al 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 agreemen ts 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 exi sting 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 approximatel y 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
now with the City of Shafter s revised General Plan boundary and Sphere of Influence. Addition of approximately 3,837 ac res 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 7 th 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). 2.1-28
FIGURE 2.1.2-3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD PLANNING AREA 2.1-29
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 2.1-30
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 2035 2. 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
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. 2.1-32
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 facilitating the master planning of larger areas. large landholdings predominate, 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
FIGURE 2.1.2-4 URBAN - OPPORTUNITIES AND RESERVE MAP 2.1-34