Land Use Notices |
|
>> Current Issues
Transportation Challenges
Driving in Bakersfield will get worse. According to the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan Update's Eironmental Impact Report "...significant
and
unavoidable level of service traffic impacts would occur to various roadway
segments throughout the Metropolitan area." Those driving on our roadways experience
these impacts now. Unless two things are accomplished soon we can expect worse
driving conditions as we grow. Both the City Council of Bakersfield and the
Kern County Board of Supervisors must increase the transportation impact fees,
and we the citizens must consider supporting a countywide half cent sales tax
dedicated to roads.
The metropolitan transportation impact fee was first adopted by the City and
the County in 1992. At that time each residential unit paid $1179 a one time
transportation fee upon construction. In 1997 that was updated to $2190 and in
2002 a cost of construction update took the fee to $2346. This impact fee has
resulted in improvements being constructed, but notwithstanding this fee, we
have continued to fall behind in meeting the transportation needs of this
growing community. That is why the EIR listed transportation as an unmitigated
negative impact in the EIR of the General Plan update.
The EIR rightly concluded we will continue to fall further behind because our
adopted fee was always insufficient to meet our needs. We must demand a fee
sufficient to meet the needs.
Since the adoption of the General Plan Update a committee of City and County
staff has been working on a list of projects that will be needed in the next
20 years in Metropolitan Bakersfield. That task has become more challenging
because with the change in State law, passage of SB 45, we at the local level are
newly faced with putting some of California's routes on the list with City
streets and County roads because the fixed amount of money allocated to Kern is
insufficient to maintain the State's highways within Kern's jurisdiction.
This may not seem right, but it is what we are faced with.
Once the staff committee has agreed on the needed projects then the City
Council and the Board of Supervisors must adopt the list and the accompanying fee
to fund the projects. Vision 2020 proved that the community wants
transportation improvements. The rub occurs when the fee proposal comes up for a
vote.
The average Joe or Jane has no way of knowing whether the fee is truly adequate.
A brief reflection on past experience can provide guidance.
We know the current fee is inadequate, and we also know that the development
community often opposes these fee increases because it increases the cost of
new development. The only way to change the outcome is to call on our elected
representatives to adopt a transportation fee increase that will truly do the
job. Which means that the staff recommended fee increase will likely be the
number to support. Those who lobby for reductions will in reality be lobbying for
more pot holes and inadequate road capacity. Only we the citizens can ensure
that does not happen. Fee increases are usually politically unpopular, but in
this case the increase is sorely needed.
The second part of the equation is a half cent sales tax increase to meet
countywide road needs. There is also a local committee working on that task.
Again a transportation project list must be agreed upon before that tax can be put
on the ballot. This tax has failed in the past which means that the adequacy
of the transportation impact fee is all the more important if the fee is all
we are able to use to staunch our ballooning road problem.
July, 2003
Downtown Master Planning
The extensive City-wide efforts of the Vision 2020 Project and the recent Downtown Charrette have clearly demonstrated a strong community interest in the planning and development of our Downtown, both in the short twenty year term but also in the longer term, the twenty-first century. The community's vision for the future is predicated on the notion that both public and private development will respect the goals and strategies generated by the forgoing collaborative efforts and that each new project will contribute to that community vision.
There are always competing elements and issues in any master planning effort. However, it is universally accepted that the major asset elements must be carefully positioned in the plan first while providing opportunities for the secondary elements and smaller infill elements that will follow. Selecting a site for a new City Government Center is one such major asset element that will have century long impacts on the development of our Downtown. The need for a Downtown Master Plan that addresses the following issues is essential in order to multiply the advantage of this public development on other surrounding development that will follow:
Rather than deferring to a site selection technique that simply considers availability and cost, these and other similar planning concepts must be addressed in selecting the new site for a new City Government Center. A Downtown Master Planning effort that extends the realm of study and planning to include all of Downtown is essential if we are to achieve our Community Vision of building a Livable Community.
Smart Growth's stance on Sewers and Urban Sprawl
Metropolitan Bakersfield typifies urban sprawl. To change the sprawling
way
the area is growing will take changes in development practices. Requiring
sewer services for urban development slows the rate of urban sprawl and
protects the quality of our ground water for future generations.
Historical practices
Kern County developed a system to provide for urban development in areas
where incorporated cities do not exist. Among the practices established
was
provision for sanitary disposal of human wastes which includes sewer
systems
as well as septic tanks. Sewer services have been provided by sewer
districts that have been able to annex new areas to provide services until
such time as federal monies dried up for expansion of sewer plants.
Septic
tanks, where soils warranted such use, has been routinely allowed.
Current practices
Urbanization has grown inside the Bakersfield city limits and outside of
the
city limits. The practice of the County of Kern allowing urban
development
within the Metropolitan area has contributed to urban sprawl. In the
summer
of 2000, the newly reestablished Kern County Planning Commission called
for a
more stringent sewer policy. In response to that request the Resource
Management Agency of the County of Kern developed a proposed change to the
County sewer policy.
A staff proposal was brought to the County Planning Commission in response
to
that request. This proposal requires that new residential commercial and
industrial development be required to construct and connect to sewer
facilities instead of allowing individual septic systems. Corresponding
changes in the sewer systems, sewer connections, and land division
ordinances
to implement the proposed policies will also be made. A new ordinance is
also proposed to collect impact fees to fund construction of necessary
sewer
facilities located at County Service Area 71, metropolitan Bakersfield,
and
western Rosedale area. The Planning Commission approved the plan, and the
Kern County Board of Supervisors did the same on December 12, 2000.
This new sewer policy impacts only a portion of the unincorporated
metropolitan area northwest of Bakersfield. It is expected that this will
be
a pilot for further expansion of this policy to other unincorporated areas
of
metropolitan Bakersfield. Such expansion will require the cooperation of
special districts in the metro area that provide water and sewer services.
Smart Growth perspective
When septic tanks are approved in order to allow urban development, it
usually requires more land then if sewer hookups are required. Because of
this fact sewers help reduce urban sprawl. In addition sewers tend to
protect ground water quality more then septic tanks. For these reasons the
Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County supports a more stringent sewer
policy
then currently exists in the unincorporated metropolitan Bakersfield area.
Response to:
Mr. Ted James, AICP, Director
Dear Mr. James,
A committee of The Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County reviewed the
above referenced document and is pleased to take this opportunity to
respond
with the following observations and comments.
Identifying and establishing the South Beltway Corridor alignment in
advance of the inevitable development growth of the community provides
greater predictability of both the land-use impacts and the associated
incremental land-use decisions facing policy-makers. The consensus
achieved
through public discussions and the increased cooperation between the City
of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern clearly contribute to the credibility
and
reliability of long range planning decisions effecting these community
wide
transportation needs.
We would also like to express the following concerns:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me should you have
any
questions about our comments.
Sincerely,
Pauline Larwood, Executive Director
|