Development boundaries drive general plan talk
| Monday, Oct 26 2009 09:55 PM
Last Updated Monday, Oct 26 2009 09:55 PM
Monday night's meeting didn't lock down a final draft of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
But the discussion before the Kern County Board of Supervisors offered up some interesting concepts that could help the plan pry the county and the city of Bakersfield out of a tough pickle.
Kern County special projects chief, Lorelei Oviatt, from the Kern County Planning Department laid out the problem for the audience.
Growth in Bakersfield has been completed largely on the edges of the metropolitan area.
Services are strained.
Bakersfield's transportation system isn't strong enough to carry more far-flung development on the fringes.
And state legislation is requiring local governments to change the way they build in order to minimize climate change.
The update of the General Plan that is in progress needs to solve those problems.
Currently the plan, as proposed, would draw lines around the city's core and extract dramatic concessions for developers who want to build outside the lines.
But supervisors are looking for other options and Oviatt handed them some:
Build developments only if they connect to the transportation network as it is expected to be in 2035.
Give approval only to projects that have real bricks and mortar urban projects already in place next to them.
Eliminate the boundaries for development but add tougher standards.
Establish focused infill areas where development standards are lighter and developers will be encouraged to build.
Some of the ideas resonated with supervisors.
Michael Rubio called for more boundary lines -- not less.
But the lines shouldn't be tied to target years, he argued.
Development should be simply more expensive the further out you build.
Supervisor Mike Maggard spoke out against the very principal of lines.
"It is, in my opinion, arbitrary every time you draw a line," he said. "I'm looking for a way for the market to determine this."
But he too liked linking development costs to the project's distance from the core.
Other supervisors were skeptical about letting the market dictate how the community develops.
Supervisor Don Maben noted that it was the market that generated the 35,942 approved, but undeveloped, home lots sitting in the metro area now.
Members of the public shared an equally diverse perspective.
Andreas Lewis of Rosedale land developer Neighborhood Development isn't a fan of development boundaries.
But he called for the county to come up with a plan, set the rules and allow developers move forward.
"This system right now seems to have come to a complete standstill," he said.
Bob Smith with Bike Bakersfield called for a development plan that creates better connectivity for bicycle riders.
"The safety and capacity of the street need to accommodate bicyclists," Smith said. "We've talked to a lot of bicycle users and they simply do not feel safe on the streets of Bakersfield."
Tom Dee of Western Properties said having a line on a planning map will impact the value of the company's land, ability to get financing and ability to build it.
Supervisors directed staff to come back with a startegy for how they will move forward in creating the plan.
"This meeting has been really helpful," said Supervisor John McQuiston.
