HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2016
B A K E R S F I E L D
Staff: Committee members:
Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager Bob Smith, Chair
Ken Weir
Harold Hanson
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
First Floor, Conference Room A
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 2, 2016 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. High Speed Rail Station Plan Update – McIsaac
B. General Plan Update Overview – McIsaac / Kitchen
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion Regarding City-Owned Property on P and Q Streets – Tandy / McIsaac
i. Downtown Site Alternative – Committee Chair Smith
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
B A K E R S F I E L D
Committee Members
Staff: Chris Huot Councilmember, Bob Smith Chair
Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Harold Hanson
Councilmember, Ken Weir
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North – Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Committee members:
Councilmember, Bob Smith, Chair
Councilmember, Harold Hanson
Councilmember, Ken Weir
City Staff:
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Chris Huot and Steven Teglia, Assistant City Managers
Christopher Gerry, Administrative Analyst – City Manager’s Office
Caleb Blaschke, Management Assistant
Andy Heglund, Deputy City Attorney
Nick Fidler, Public Works Director
Doug McIsaac, Community Development Director
Jacqui Kitchen, Planning Director
Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner
Kate Shea, Associate Planner
Additional Attendees:
Ahron Hakimi, Kern Council of Governments
Gunnar Hand, SOM
Gordon Nicker, Sierra Club
Steve Montgomery, Sierra Club
Mark Roy, Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance
Lauren Skidmore, Kern Citizens for Sustainable Government
Cathy Butler, Downtown Bakersfield DC
Bob Bell, DBDC
Renee Nelson, Clean Water Air Matter
Richard Harriman, San Joaquin Valley Environmental Defense Center
Theo Douglas, The Bakersfield Californian
2. ADOPT MAY 7, 2015 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
The report was adopted as submitted.
/S/ Chris Huot
Planning and Development Committee
February 2, 2016 Agenda Summary Report
Page 2
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Renee Nelson with Clean Water Air Matter thanked staff for promptly holding a meeting to
discuss the General Plan Update.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. General Plan Update Overview
Planning Director Kitchen provided a brief overview of what a General Plan is and
the process the City will need to take to update its current General Plan. She will
provide an update at a future Committee meeting.
Gordon Nipp with the Sierra Club stated the 2002 General Plan needs to be updated
as there are significant changes that have occurred since then.
Richard Harriman with San Joaquin Valley Environmental Defense Center stated he is
looking forward to working with staff and hopes that the Committee will integrate an
economic development element in the update to the General Plan. He also
encouraged the transition from paper to electronic documentation of the
environmental impact report (EIR).
Committee Chair Smith stated he thought it is the right time to get started an
updating the General Plan since the process can take years.
Planning Director Kitchen stated the public outreach phase of the process requires a
substantial amount of effort. The results of the outreach and the direction taken will
determine the timeline for completion of the update.
City Manager Tandy stated that the current plan is a joint City-County Metro Area
Plan. Staff has reached out to the County in an effort to continue a joint relationship
which will also affect the timeline for completion of the update.
B. High Speed Rail Update
Community Development Director McIsaac presented maps exhibiting the planning
area for the High Speed Rail Project and the proposed statewide alignment of the
California High Speed Rail System. He stated that there are two alignment routes
being considered by the High Speed Rail Authority. The Authority will determine
where the alignment will go and where the station site will be located. Director
McIsaac summarized several topics and issues that will be related and addressed in
the station area plan.
Director McIsaac introduced Project Manager Gunnar Hand of the consulting firm
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP. Mr. Hand stated that the project was a significant one
which will allow for the revitalization of the downtown area. The community outreach
workshops will begin in March.
Planning and Development Committee
February 2, 2016 Agenda Summary Report
Page 3
Renee Nelson with Clean Water Air Matter stated stations create a lot of economic
activity.
Planning Director Kitchen stated that the State funded High Speed Rail Station Area Plan
will provide great opportunity for staff. The experience and legislation issues to be
addressed will help in the updating of the General Plan as well.
Committee Chair Smith stated he looked forward to seeing both, the High Speed Rail
Station Area Plan and the General Plan, develop and progress to completion.
C. Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the 2016
Committee Meeting Schedule - Huot
The Committee meeting scheduled was adopted as submitted.
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Committee Chair Smith asked if the City’s Subdivision Design Manual had been completed.
Public Works Director Fidler stated approximately 90 percent of the changes to the
document had been completed.
Committee Chair Smith requested staff provided him with the information regarding the
concept of parklets.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
B A K E R S F I E L D
Community Development Department
Douglas N. McIsaac, Director
M E M O R A N D U M
April 19, 2016
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bob Smith, Chair
Harold Hanson
Ken Weir
FROM: DOUGLAS N. McISAAC, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JACQUELYN R. KITCHEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: Status Update - High-Speed Rail Station Area Plan
On February 2, 2016, the Planning and Development Committee requested to be
provided with ongoing updates on the status of the High-Speed Rail Station Area Plan
(HSR SAP). Updates have been provided as follows:
• February 16, 2016: Summary of February 2, 2016 presentation and Status Update
• April 19, 2016: Status Update
The City of Bakersfield, in coordination with California High-Speed Rail Authority, is
developing a strategy for the area around the planned High-Speed Rail station in
Downtown Bakersfield. The plan will guide the area’s physical development, stimulate
economic activity, and enhance the community’s sustainability by encouraging infill
development and enhancing multimodal connectivity. The study will build on existing
planning efforts to create a vision for the development and revitalization of downtown
Bakersfield with HSR and the results can be used to pursue public and private sector
funding for implementation, as well as create a baseline document for future
downtown planning efforts.
The City has contracted with the planning firm Skidmore Ownings & Merrill LLP team
(Consultant) to prepare the plan and various reports and deliverables. The project has
been organized into seven project phases through a comprehensive Work Plan.
Page 1 of 5
HIGHLIGHTS:
As outlined below in more detailed, the Station Area Plan process is now well into its
third month and the process is continuing to proceed on schedule.
Branding: In order to provide the project with its own identity and easily convey what
the project is attempting to achieve, branding images were developed, with the
primary message being “Making Downtown Bakersfield” as portrayed below. Other
branding images can be viewed on the project website discussed below.
Website: A dedicated webpage for the Station area Plan process has been
established at www.makingdowntownbakersfield.us. The webpage contains
background information, updates on progress, and provides an opportunity for people
to provide their input on mySidewalk.
Visioning Workshops: Within the last month, the Consultant team held a total of ten
visioning workshops hosted by various organizations throughout Bakersfield. The
workshops were facilitated by the public engagement firm of Place It! and utilized a
creative model building exercise to help elicit people’s ideas about how they would
envision their ideal downtown Bakersfield.
Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5
Coming Up: The next significant milestone will be the issuance of an “Existing
Conditions” report by the Consultant, which is expected to completed by the end of
April. The report will encompass Land Use, Transportation, and Economics and will serve
as the baseline of information from which the planning work will be conducted.
Also, on May 10, 2016, the State High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) will hold its monthly
Board meeting in the Bakersfield City Council Chambers. It is anticipated that prior to
the meeting, the HSRA staff will release its recommendation for the “Preliminary
Preferred Alignment” for the route traversing through greater Bakersfield, and that the
HSRA Board will vote to select its preliminary preferred alignment at that meeting.
This will be a key determination as it will allow active work to begin on land use
scenarios for the Station Area Plan based on the Preliminary Preferred Alignment’s
identified station location.
DETAILED STATUS:
The Work Plan Milestone Tasks and project deliverables are shown below; with status
and updates shown in bold italics.
Phase 1: Kickoff. During the kickoff phase, the City and Consultant set expectations,
established procedures for project and Milestone delivery, clarified internal
communication methods, set draft agendas for the first series of meetings, and
developed initial community engagement strategies. Completed February 2016.
Phase 2: Public Participation and Engagement Efforts. The Consultant will prepare a
detailed public involvement and input plan with guidance from the City, Work Planning
Team (WPT), and HSR Stakeholder Committee, to involve the community and interested
stakeholders in the planning process and ultimately to create buy-in for
implementation. The Consultant will track issues raised by the public and incorporate
questions, concerns, issues, and responses into ongoing communications when and
where appropriate.
1. Public engagement plan – Completed March 2016.
2. Database of key stakeholders – Completed February 2016, Updates ongoing.
3. Create HSR Stakeholder Committee and facilitate regular meetings – Completed,
first Stakeholder meeting held February 11, 2016; Ongoing monthly meetings on the
second Thursday of each month.
4. Project website – www.makingdowntownbakersfield.us is up and running, Updates
ongoing.
5. Public Visioning Workshops – 11 workshops were held March 10, 29-30 and at April 7
Planning Commission meeting, with over 150 participants.
6. Stakeholder Interviews – Held March 29 & 30, ongoing.
7. Workshops “What We Heard” report – to be completed end of April 2016.
8. Public Meeting #1 – to be held end June 2016.
9. Public Meeting #2 – to be held end of October 2016.
Page 4 of 5
Phase 3: Alternative Analysis. Development and analysis of up to three HSR SAP
Alternative Scenarios to understand potential effects of HSR on development and
growth of downtown, as well as the various constraints that will affect the feasibility of
each Alternative. Analysis will include an overview comparing strengths and
challenges of each scenario, identify transportation and economic development
opportunities that emerge from each, and lay the groundwork for an implementation
strategy.
1. HSR Station Area Vision Statement – draft to be completed end of April 2016
2. Existing Conditions Report (a review of the existing land use, transportation, and
infrastructure conditions) with:
a. Peer Cities Case Studies
b. Multi-modal Access, Circulation and Connectivity Analysis
c. Economic & Real Estate Market Analysis - to be completed early May 2016
3. Draft HSR Station Area Alternative Scenarios – to be completed end of May 2016
Next Steps:
The remaining phases are briefly summarized below. All corresponding tasks and
deliverables are all “in development” and will be fully listed in future updates.
Phase 4: Screening HSR Station Area Alternative Scenarios. Consultant will establish
methodology for prioritizing Alternative Scenarios, and to establish factors that are most
important for HSR in downtown Bakersfield. The Consultant will conduct and synthesize
the various analyses and compile analysis documents summarizing work completed to
this point, to be incorporated later into the final plan document. Upcoming June 2016.
Phase 5: Developing a Preferred Alternative Scenario. Consultant will complete
analyses described in Phase 4 to identify a Final Preferred Alternative. Includes
refinement of preliminary strategies for urban design, multi-modal circulation, parking
strategies, and transit integration, as well as identify viable funding solutions through
traditional and innovative sources. Deliverables include recommendations for the urban
design, multi-modal circulation, parking and economic development strategies for the
PA. Upcoming October 2016.
Phase 6: Implementation. Consultant to develop strategy for implementation including
policy recommendations, infrastructure investments, economic development tools,
near-term projects and identification of responsible parties and funding sources.
Upcoming March 2017.
Phase 7: Environmental Impact Report. Consultant will prepare, circulate, and finalize a
program level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the HSR SAP. Upcoming December
2016 – March 2017.
Page 5 of 5
B A K E R S F I E L D
Community Development Department
Douglas N. McIsaac, Director
M E M O R A N D U M
April 19, 2016
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bob Smith, Chair
Harold Hanson
Ken Weir
FROM: DOUGLAS N. McISAAC, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JACQUELYN R. KITCHEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: General Plan Update Overview – Status Update
On February 2, 2016, an initial report was provided to the Planning and Development
Committee regarding the proposal to initiate a comprehensive update to the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Direction was provided for staff to conduct
further research related to undertaking a General Plan update.
The attached “white paper” has now been prepared to provide the Committee with
pertinent background information, research of other cities, and an analysis of costs,
time frames, and other factors related to this project. The white paper will serve as a
basis for soliciting further discussion and direction from the Committee regarding
moving forward with a General Plan update.
1
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update
Whitepaper
An Overview of General Plan Requirements in California and Options for the City
of Bakersfield
2016
Presented By:
Jacqui Kitchen, Planning Director
Planning Division, City of Bakersfield
April 2016
2
Table of Contents
1 The Issue .............................................................................................................................................................3
2 Background ......................................................................................................................................................4
3 Legal Requirements for General Plan Update .......................................................................................5
3.1 Update Requirement .............................................................................................................................5
3.2 MBGP Horizon ...........................................................................................................................................5
4 Costs, Funds & Consultant Role ..................................................................................................................5
4.1 Costs ...........................................................................................................................................................5
4.2 Available Funds .......................................................................................................................................6
4.3 Consultant Role .......................................................................................................................................6
5 Reasons to Wait On General Plan Update ..............................................................................................7
6 Reasons to Update General Plan Now .....................................................................................................7
7 Approach ......................................................................................................................................................9
7.1 Additional Issues/Elements ...................................................................................................................9
7.2 Options .......................................................................................................................................................9
8 Key Issues to Resolve Prior to Next Steps ............................................................................................... 10
8.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 10
8.2 County Participation ........................................................................................................................... 10
8.3 Schedule ................................................................................................................................................ 10
8.4 Cost .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
9 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A. Conceptual Schedule & Cost Estimate ........................................................................... 12
Appendix B. Metro General Plan Land Use Designations: Conceptual Changes .................... 14
Appendix C. Comparable Cities Overview ............................................................................................. 15
Appendix D. Research Memorandum – Comparable Cities .............................................................. 17
3
1 The Issue
California Government Code §65300 requires that each City adopt a comprehensive, long-term
General Plan for the physical development of the City and surrounding unincorporated land
which bears relation to the long-term planning process. The General Plan is required to contain
seven mandatory Elements including: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open
Space, Noise, and Safety.
The State also acknowledges that planning is a continuous process and states that the General
Plan should be reviewed regularly, regardless of its horizon, and revised as new information
becomes available and as community needs and values change.
In 2002, the City of Bakersfield adopted the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) to
guide development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The Plan was adopted jointly by
the City and the County of Kern (County) and includes all incorporated areas of the City, the
surrounding Sphere of Influence, and contiguous unincorporated properties in the metropolitan
area. Both City and County land was included to allow opportunity for coordinated efforts
between the two jurisdictions, to facilitate orderly and efficient extension of services and utilities,
and to establish consistent standards for development. It is notable that the MBGP appears to
be the only jointly-adopted General Plan in the State of California.
The 2002 document updated the text of the previous General Plan, which was adopted in 1990.
There were also minor revisions to the land use map designations; which had originally been
prepared in the late 1980's. Staff prepared the text changes “in-house” and a consultant
prepared the corresponding Environmental Impact Report.
In the 14 years since adoption of the MBGP, there have been changes in State law, local
ordinances, growth patterns, and the needs of the community. Therefore, it is time to
comprehensively update the General Plan. While the basic objectives of the Plan would remain
unchanged, City Council direction is needed in several key areas; including: (1) identifying the
goals and policies that should be updated or added; (2) the need to update and change
existing land use map designations; (3) direction on any new Elements to be incorporated into
the new Plan; and (4) the desire to co-adopt the new Plan with the County.
Research on these issues and review of the experiences of other similar-sized cities shows that a
comprehensive update to the General Plan can take anywhere from 2 to 5 years, at a cost of
$1 million and upwards. Factors determining the final numbers include complexity of the update
approach, the level of community involvement and public outreach, and the types of issues that
arise during the update process. Additional costs and time would be incurred if the project is
legally challenged pursuant to CEQA.
Therefore, Staff anticipates that, under a “moderate” update scenario, the update would likely
take a minimum of 2 years and would cost between $1 million and $2 million dollars, depending
on the factors noted above. The time-frame is also largely dependent on City staff levels, future
budget constraints, and the level of controversy generated during the process.
4
2 Background
The following is an overview of the General Plan efforts over the last 35 years.
1990: Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Adopted (20 Year Plan)
2000: “Vision 2020” effort; extensive public involvement on future of growth
2002: Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) Adopted (20 Year Plan)
- What: Updated 2010 MBGP text to incorporate Vision 2020 data, new laws, fees; also
updated land use map to reflect development since 1990 (McAllister Ranch, Western
Rosedale).
- Why: Changes occurred since 2010 plan adopted; goals accomplished.
- Who: City and County Staff along with consulting firm; public workshops.
- Time: Process took approximately 3 years with substantial staff time.
- Cost: Majority of work done in-house by City Staff + $130,000 consulting fees.
- Changes: Mapping changes were not part of the process; significant policy changes
did not occur; Implementation measures were not changed.
- Advantages: Used Vision 2020 as public outreach component and basis for policy
update; No mapping or other policy changes reduced time & costs.
- Disadvantages: Mapping/development policies did not go far into future.
2007: Began to prepare an update to 2002 MBGP:
- 02/07: 2/27/06 Joint BOS/CC Meeting; directed Staff to pursue GP update.
- 05/07: Town Hall Meetings Phase 1 - workshops in Bakersfield quadrants.
- 07/07: Vision 2020 “Web Survey” and telephone survey by KernCOG.
- 01/08: KernCOG Public Meetings for regional “Blueprint” planning process
- 02/08: More workshops held by KernCOG.
- 12/08: Public Outreach Issues Report available for public review.
- 04/20/09: Joint PC meeting to review Existing Conditions Report.
- 10/09: Board of Supervisors Public Study Session/Workshop.
- 03/08/10: Joint Planning Commission Workshop for Status Update.
- 2010-Current: Economic downturn; no further actions.
2009: Completed Housing Element for 2008-2013 (Mandatory per Government Code 65588)
2015: City received notice from State that MBGP is aged; Attorney General will be notified once
it is 10 years old. Planning Director responded noting the recent/ongoing Element
updates (see 2016 below)
2016: City Council approved Housing Element for 2015-2023 (Per SC 65588) (1/20/16)
2016: City updated 3 Elements per State requirements: (1) Land Use (SB 244): Identified potential
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community areas (per Census Tract income data),
added analysis of service needs/deficiencies; identified financing alternatives for service
extension; (2) Conservation (AB 162): Identified land that may accommodate floodwaters
for groundwater recharge & storm-water management; (3) Safety (SB 1241): new goals,
policies, objectives & implementation measures based on the flood and fire risk identified.
2022: End of 2002 MBGP planning horizon
5
3 Legal Requirements for General Plan Update
This section describes the legal requirements for updating the General Plan.
3.1 Update Requirement
Section 65103(a) of the Government Code allows local governments to revise their general plans
as often as they deem necessary; and the code does not specify a mandatory minimum time
frame for revision of elements, except for the Housing Element which is regulated by Section
65588.
The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) prepared “General Plan Guidelines” to assist
local governments in preparing the General Plan. With regard to timing for updates, the
document states the following: “Remember that planning is a continuous process; the general
plan should be reviewed regularly, regardless of its horizon, and revised as new information
becomes available and as community needs and values change… A general plan based upon
outdated information and projections is not a sound basis for day-to-day decision-making and
may be legally inadequate. As such, it will be susceptible to successful legal challenge.”
In essence, the State Guidelines recommend that the General Plan be reviewed and updated
regularly and as new information becomes available, but also recognizes that many jurisdictions
select a 15-20 year timeframe.
3.2 MBGP Horizon
The City’s existing MBGP was adopted in 2002 and anticipated a 20-year planning horizon. This
timeframe was included in the CEQA analysis. However, the plan is now 14 years old and the
original 20-year planning horizon does not entirely prevent legal challenges to the plan. In fact,
the City has already received several comments from the general public challenging the legal
adequacy of the plan.
4 Costs, Funds & Consultant Role
4.1 Costs
A well-executed General Plan creates a blueprint for the community’s future growth and quality
of life. As such, preparation of the update to the General Plan may pose a significant expensive
for the City. According to the League of California Cities, the average city of 100,000 residents
can expect to spend $800,000–$900,000 on the General Plan, plus the cost of the EIR which can
range anywhere from $200,000 to $500,000 or more, depending on a variety of factors.
Throughout California, the cost for larger Cities can be several million dollars, and some County
general plans cost upward of $10 million. The more expensive Plans typically take the City in a
new direction and include new development concepts, re-designation of undeveloped land,
and extensive technical analyses associated with the EIR. This was the case for the City of
Sacramento which spent about $4 million dollars, and Ontario which spent $3 million, plus staff
time for both. The City of Santa Monica recently spent $2.3 million plus staff time.
6
It is noted that the City of Sacramento (97.92 square miles), the City of Ontario (50 square miles),
and the City of Santa Monica (8.3 square miles) are all significantly smaller in geographic size
than the City of Bakersfield (151 square miles).
Appendix C contains a “Comparable Cities Overview” and shows that recent costs for Cities
similar to Bakersfield have ranged from $1.1 million to $3 million. Additionally, Section 7 of this
Report describes specific factors and approaches that Bakersfield could take for the Update
and shows that a specific cost projection will be determined once Staff receives direction on the
scope of the Update and prepares a comprehensive Request for Proposals (RFP).
4.2 Available Funds
The City maintains a “General Plan Update Trust fund” for the purpose of the Update and has
been collecting a flat fee of $84 for each building permit since 2005. The fee was recently raised
to $105 as a part of the 2016 Fee update. It is noted that the City’s fee is significantly less than the
fee collected by other comparable Cities.
The City currently has accumulated a total of approximately $1.8 million dollars in funds
dedicated for the purpose of updating the General Plan. With the recent increase in the fee
amount, it is estimated that the City would have a total of approximately $2 million available
within the next two years (i.e. within the minimal time frame that the General Plan update is
anticipated to take).
4.3 Consultant Role
The Update would consist of Staff working together with one or more third party Consultant(s) to
prepare the General Plan Update and ensure that the goals, policies, implementation measures
and overall layout are compatible with City Council direction and needs of the community. It is
necessary to hire a Consultant to assist dedicated City Staff with the specialized and technical
components of this comprehensive project. The Consultant’s key roles would include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Public Outreach Strategy (Visioning, Surveys, Workshops, Engagement, Reporting, etc.)
2. Existing Conditions Reports (Baseline Conditions for General Plan & CEQA analysis)
3. Prepare Draft General Plan (Framework, Goals, Policies, Implementation, New/ Updated
Elements) for City Staff to review, adjust and expand upon.
4. Update Draft General Plan Based on Staff Review, Council Input, & Public Comment
5. Comprehensive CEQA Analysis – Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Report & associated
documents such as Notice of Preparation, Technical Studies (Air Quality, Traffic Impact
Analysis, Water, Cultural, Urban Decay, etc), Response to Comments, etc.
6. Update Draft EIR based on Staff Review, Council Input, & Public Comment
7. Prepare Final General Plan and Final EIR and associated documents/maps/GIS and CAD
files, Monitoring Programs, etc.
7
5 Reasons to Wait On General Plan Update
Initiation of the update at a later date in the future would allow for the City to review other on-
going issues prior to initiating the update.
A listing of the relevant issues that support an update in the future is provided:
1. OPR is updating General Plan Guidelines (last updated in 2003); the new Guidelines are
anticipated to be complete in late 2016
2. Substantial Cost to City
3. Substantial City Staff Time
4. Development Community Concerns
5. On-going compliance with the State’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) will require preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) which will inform
and be relevant to the General Plan Update.
6 Reasons to Update General Plan Now
Initiation of the update now would allow the City to proceed as it deems appropriate before the
General Plan may be legally challenged. An updated General Plan will also reflect the current
conditions and priorities within the community, will streamline development review to encourage
expedited and thoughtful local development, will incorporate public outreach feedback, and
will address new legislation.
A listing of the relevant issues that support an update to the General Plan is provided:
1. CEQA Document. 2001 EIR prepared prior to SB 375 (Greenhouse Gas) and other recent
legislation. Some issues are addressed on a project level which leaves City vulnerable to
CEQA challenges and reduces ability to use CEQA exemptions, Negative Declarations and
the use of the existing General Plan EIR.
2. New Laws:
a. Air Quality. (AB 32 & SB 375) The 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act AB 32) requires
reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and established the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and Scoping Plan to achieve this goal via cap & trade, and other
strategies related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Transit Oriented Development (TOD),
etc.; SB 375 requires more compact growth and that regional planning agencies assign
housing production targets consistent with regional sustainability and transportation plans
which set specific targets for reducing GHG.
b. Transportation/Complete Streets (AB 1358). Requires Circulation Element to plan for multi-
modal transportation networks that allow travel by motor vehicle, foot, bicycle, and
transit. OPR updated GP guidelines in 2010 to provide guidance to cities.
8
c. Disadvantaged Communities (SB 244). Requires Land Use Element to identify
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (island or fringe) within the SOI, and analyze
water, wastewater, storm-water drainage, and structural fire protection needs; and
financing options for extension of services.
d. Fire Hazards (SB 1241). Requires Safety Element to address the risk of fire for land classified
as “State Responsibility Areas” (SRA), as defined in PRC 4102.
e. Flood Control (AB 162). Requires Conservation & Safety Elements to add information
concerning flood/fire hazards, storm-water management, ground water recharge.
f. Persons with Developmental Disabilities (SB 812). Housing Elements to include an analysis
of the special housing needs of the disabled, including persons with developmental
disabilities.
g. Emergency Shelters (SB 2). Demonstrate sites/ zoning available to accommodate need
and describe characteristics/suitability of zone(s).
3. Growth: Since the General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2002, the population
of Bakersfield has grown from 259,200 to 369,500, which is an increase of 110,300 or 43 percent.
The population is expected to continue to grow at a stable rate over the next 20-year
planning horizon.
4. Changing Economy: Adjustments to housing, employment, and population projections are
needed to be consistent with updated Census Numbers, Transportation Plans and the 2040
planning horizon. This is an opportunity to explore funding options such as Public Business
Improvement Districts (PBID), Mello-Roose Districts for schools, etc).
5. Transportation (Level of Service vs. Vehicle Miles Traveled). Current LOS standard often
requires mitigation that increases road sizes; however other options may be more cost
effective (capital, operations, maintenance). Appropriate to incorporate concepts: Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD), Multi-Model, Priority Investment Areas, etc.
6. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Plan could contain CAP or similar mechanism to ensure that
greenhouse gas reduction measures are implemented and monitored.
7. Flood Protection. Plan could include policies and maps to address flood risks and higher
standards for flood protection; as well as new data regarding Isabella Dam.
8. Healthy Communities. Interest in urban agriculture, community gardens, locally grown foods,
improved public health and well-being, etc.
9
7 Approach
Given that the last comprehensive update to the MBGP was in 2002, and the considerable costs
associated with preparation of a full General Plan update and related environmental
documents, it appears to be a prudent and efficient use of the City’s resources to undertake a
thorough evaluation of desired growth and development of the City for the next 20 years.
This would involve an evaluation of: (1) how Bakersfield has changed since the last General Plan
update, (2) how the City envisions and desires to continue to grow and develop over the next
20 years, (3) factors (legal, demographic, socio-economic, environmental, etc.) that may
influence future growth and development, and (4) changes that may wish to be considered
based on these considerations.
7.1 Additional Issues/Elements
Another important consideration is the desire to include other issues in the General Plan update
beyond simply the seven legally required elements.
Probably most significantly is a possible Economic Development Element. This has become a
very common and beneficial optional element among California cities in recent years. With the
dissolution of Community Redevelopment in California in 2012, cities throughout the state
continue to evaluate how they can facilitate and support economic growth without this
important tool. Also, continuing changes to economic conditions and trends can create a need
to evaluate how the City can best grow economically within the time frame of the General Plan
and how land use and other General Plan issues can be coordinated to achieve economic
development goals.
Another possibility is to build upon the ongoing High Speed Rail Station Area Planning efforts and
develop a new Downtown Bakersfield Element that could include specific architectural
standards and polices to invigorate Downtown Bakersfield.
Other California cities have elected to address a variety of broad issues in their General Plans;
such as: Air Quality, Climate Action Plan, Healthy Communities, Urban Form Design, etc.
7.2 Options
Within that framework, however, there are options and alternatives as to what extent these issues
are considered and addressed. Most significantly, how this is approached will have a large
bearing on the cost and time it would take to complete the General Plan update. With an
approximate available budget of $2 million, this should be adequate to undertake a reasonably
thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the major issues.
A sample of potential Goals of the Update could include:
1. Complete a comprehensive public “visioning” process and incorporate past public outreach
efforts that have occurred since 2002.
2. Review and update all 7 required Elements to reflect legislation and existing conditions.
3. Update Land Use Element to delete obsolete land use designations.
10
4. Identify specific areas for intensive update of goals, policies and implementation measures.
5. Add Elements as required by OPR and State Law (Healthy Communities, etc.)
6. Add other new Elements as deemed appropriate; i.e, Economic Development, Downtown.
7. Provide a new EIR to address cumulative impacts and facilitate streamlined future
development during the planning horizon
8 Key Issues to Resolve Prior to Next Steps
There are several issues the warrant resolution before the next steps can be taken to update the
General Plan. These are as follows:
8.1 Approach
As noted in Section 7, the extent to which changes in land use policies may be evaluated and
considered, as well as several optional elements and issues that may be considered to be
addressed. Staff seeks input or direction on what approach is most desired. Appendix A includes
a conceptual Schedule and Cost Projection.
8.2 County Participation
The existing MBGP was adopted together with the County of Kern in 2002. However, there have
been many changes in the development environment since that time, and Staff seeks direction
from City Council on whether the new plan should continue to be a joint document.
It is noted that, should Council prefer to process the new General Plan as an exclusive City
document, Staff could continue to coordinate on the County on certain Elements, such as the
Circulation Element, to ensure the continued viability of other joint-programs, such as the Regional
Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF).
Benefits Challenges
- Increased Coordination with County
regarding Unincorporated areas, existing
and future service agreements
- Schedule
- Cost
• Expense to include unincorporated lands
• County has preliminarily indicated that a
contribution of $300,000
- Policy Differences (Urban vs Sub-Urban)
- Utility Services to Unincorporated Areas
8.3 Schedule
The time frame for the General Plan Update process depends on the selected approach; and if
the Plan will continue to be adopted as a joint document. Any combination of these selections
will result in a different project schedule; ranging from approximately 2 to 5 years.
8.4 Cost
The costs for the General plan Update process depends on the selected approach; and if the
Plan will continue to be adopted as a joint document with the County. Any combination of these
selections will result in a different project schedule; ranging from 2 to 5 years.
11
9 Appendices
Appendix A Conceptual Schedule & Cost Estimate
Appendix B Metro General Plan Land Use Designations: Conceptual Changes
Appendix C Comparable Cities Overview
Appendix D Research Memorandum – Comparable Cities
12
Appendix A. Conceptual Schedule & Cost Estimate
2040 Bakersfield General Plan
NOTE: Time and Cost Estimates are Conceptual Ranges based on review of Comparable Cities. These numbers will be
further refined once the Scope of the Update is prepared and a consultant is retained. Schedule also subject to change
based on comment received during public process.
Project Milestone & Tasks Goal
Date Action1 Cost
Range
1: Project Initiation
1.1 City Council Adopt Resolution to define Scope & Initiate Update 06/16 CC, PD, PM
City Staff
Time
1.2 Establish Internal Work Team (WT) & Hold First Meeting 07/16 PM, PD
1.3 Prepare RFP 08/16 PM, PD
1.4 Distribute RFP to Consultant Distribution List 10/16 PM
1.5 Analyze Responses; Conduct Interviews; Make Recommendation 12/16 PM, PD, WT
1.6 City Council Adopt Resolution to Enter Contract with Consultant 01/17 CC, PD, PM
2: Project Kick-Off | Phase 1 Public Engagement
2.1 Develop Community Outreach Strategy & Education Plan 02/17 CS, PM, PD
$50,000
-
$100,000
2.2 First Meeting of Internal Work Team and Consultant 02/17 CS, PM, PD, WT
2.3 Establish Stakeholder Committee (members, goals, tasks, schedule) 02/17 CS, PM, PD, WT
2.4 Develop and launch 2040 BGP Website 03/17 CS, PM
2.5 Public Surveys: Send Surveys/Interviews for Visioning Ideas 03/17 CS, PM
2.6 Public Meeting: Public Visioning Workshops 04/17 CS, PM, PD
2.7 Public Meeting: Public Kick-Off Meeting – Intro Concept/Schedule 05/17 CS, PM, PD
3: Research | Prepare Draft Plan
3.1 Report: Prepare Existing Conditions Report for area (including
infrastructure, land uses, transportation facilities, etc.) 06/17 CS
$400,000
-
$500,000
3.2 Report: Prepare Visioning Report that lists community goals, visions
and suggests draft policies and implementation measures 07/17 CS
3.3 Report: Prepare Incorporation of Existing Plans Report (Regional
Traffic Impact Fee, Adopted Trails Plans, Adopted Bicycle Plans 07/17 CS
3.4 Report: Prepare Market Analysis & Economic Strategies Report
(Best Practice Case Studies of Finance/Marketing Strategies) 07/17 CS
3.5 Plan: Provide 1st Draft 2040 BGP (Include New Elements per State
law, updated Elements per Visioning, Downtown Boundary) 08/17 CS
3.6 Staff Review of Reports and Draft Plan 09/17 PM, PD, WT
13
Project Milestone & Tasks Goal
Date Action1 Cost
Range
4: Release Draft Plan | Phase 2 Public Engagement
4.1 Release Draft 2040 GP for 60 Day Public Review 10/17 CS, PM
$50,000
-
$200,000
4.2 Public Meeting: Public Workshops – Draft GP (4 - 8 Workshops) 11/17 CS, PM, PD
4.3 Public Meeting: Planning Commission Workshop – Draft GP 12/17 CS, PM, PD
4.4 Public Meeting: City Council Workshop – Draft GP 01/18 CS, PM, PD
5: Revise Draft Plan | Phase 1 CEQA Process
5.1 Report: Prepare Draft Plan Workshop Report that lists the feedback
received from community, stakeholders, elected officials, etc. 01/18 CS
$200,000
-
$500,000
5.2 Revise Draft GP in accordance with Workshop Report 02/18 CS
5.3 Initiate CEQA – Internal Kick-off Meeting 02/18 CS, PM, PD, WT
5.4 Prepare Draft NOP, Draft Technical Studies, EIR Project Description 03/18 CS
5.5 Staff Review Revised GP, Draft Technical Studies, EIR PD, Draft NOP 04/18 PM, PD, WT
5.6 Release NOP for 30-day public review & Hold Public Scoping Mtg 05/18 CS, PM
6: Review Revised Draft Plan |Phase 2 CEQA Process | Phase 3 Public Engagement
6.1 Finalize/Peer-Review all Technical Studies for EIR 06/18 CS
$200,000
-
$400,000
6.2 Prepare Draft EIR (Incorporate scoping meeting comments) 07/18 CS
6.3 Staff Review of Draft EIR 08/18 CS
6.4 Release Draft EIR to Responsible Agencies and Public 09/18 CS, PM
6.5 Adequacy Hearing by Planning Commission 09/18 PD, PM
6.6 Draft EIR Workshop at City Council 09/18 PD, PM
7: Present & Finalize Draft Plan | Phase 3 CEQA Process | Phase 4 Public E ngagement
7.1 Prepare Response to Comments (RTC) on Draft EIR 10/18 CS
$100,000
-
$300,000
7.2 Prepare revisions to Draft General Plan 10/18 CS
7.3 Staff Review of Final General Plan and RTC 11/18 PM, PD, WT
7.4 Schedule Final Plan and Final EIR for Hearings 11/18 PM
7.5 Planning Commission Hearing on Final Plan & Final EIR 12/18 PD, PM
7.6 City Council Hearing to adopt Final Plan and certify Final EIR 12/18 PD, PM
7.7 Prepare Final Plan, Final EIR (Incorporate any revisions from
hearings, resolutions, final CEQA Findings, Final MMRP; and make
final copies, update websites, etc.)
12/18 CS, PM
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET (Estimate): $1,000,000 -$2,000,000
Notes
PS = Planning Staff (General)
CC = City Council
PM = Project Manager (City Staff)
PD = Planning Director (City Staff)
WT = Work Team (City Staff)
CS = Consultant (Gen Plan & CEQA)
14
Appendix B. Metro General Plan Land Use Designations: Conceptual Changes
RESIDENTIAL
RR Rural Residential (min. 2.5 gross ac/du)
ER Estate Residential (min. 0.5 1 net ac/du)
UER Urban Estate Residential (min. 0.5 net ac/du) [to ER]
SR Suburban Residential (≤4 du/net ac) [to LR]
SR/LR County: ≤4 du/net ac City: ≤7.26 du/net ac [to LR]
LR Low Density Residential (≤ 7.26 10 du/net ac)
LMR/LR County: ≤10 du/net ac City: >4 du but ≤7.26 du/net ac [to LR]
LMR Low Medium Density Res (County: ≤10 du/net ac City: >4 du but ≤7.26 du/net ac) [to LR]
HMR/LMR County: ≤17.42 du/net ac City: >4 du but ≤10 du/net ac [to MR]
HMR High Medium Density Res (County: ≤17.42 du/net ac City: >7.26 du but ≤17.42 du/net ac)
HR High Density Residential (>17.42 du but ≤72.6 du/net ac)
COMMERCIAL
HC Highway Commercial [to GC]
GC General Commercial
MC Major Commercial [to GC]
OC Office Commercial
MUC Mixed Use Commercial
INDUSTRIAL
LI Light Industrial
SI Service Industrial (May no longer need this designation)
HI Heavy Industrial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
P Public Facilities
PS Public/Private Schools [to P]
PT Public Transportation Corridors [to P]
P-SW Solid Waste Facilities [to P]
OPEN SPACE
OS Open Space/Parks
OS-P Parks and Recreation [to OS]
OS-S Slopes exceeding 30% (to be part of a referenced physical constraints map)
RESOURCE
R-IA Resource - Intensive Ag (20 ac min parcel size / 80 ac min - Williamson Act)
R-EA Resource - Extensive Ag (20 ac min parcel size / 80 ac min - Williamson Act) [to R-IA]
R-MP Resource - Minerals & Petroleum (5 ac minimum parcel size)
15
Appendix C. Comparable Cities Overview
COMPARABLE CITIES
Jurisdiction
Current GP
Adoption
Date
CEQA
Document
Consultant Firm Used
for GP/EIR
Time
Total Cost
GP/CEQA
General
Plan
Surcharge
Fee
City of
Bakersfield
Dec. 11,
2002 EIR N/A 1999 - 2002
by staff Staff Time
$84 Flat Fee,
per Bldg.
Permit
City of
Fremont
Dec. 13,
2011
Res 2011-69
EIR
Res. 2011-
67 & Res.
2011-68
Lamphier-Gregory
Associates
6/2010 -
12/2011
Approx.
$500K
15% per
Bldg. Permit
City of
Fresno 2014 EIR
Dyett & Bhatia,
Calthorpe Assoc.,
MW Steele Group,
Economic and
Planning Systems,
Fehr & Peers (Traffic),
First Carbon Solutions
(EIR lead)
2007 – 2014
40 public
mtgs
+ 17 public
hearings
$1.9 Million
+ City Staff
Time
No
City of
Glendale
No
comprehen
sive GP
No EIR Staff only Ongoing by
staff Unknown Unknown
City of
Modesto 2008 Master EIR Jones & Stokes
Now ICF-J&S 1992 - 2008 Approx.
$950K
Pennies on
$1,000, has
gone to
Gen. Fund.
City of
Ontario
Jan. 27,
2010
Res 2010-
006
Program
EIR
Res. 2010-
003
The Planning Center
& Others
1/2008 –
1/2010
$3 Million
Includes
website by
consultant
No
City of
Oxnard
October
2011
Text Only,
No Map
Program
EIR
Matrix Design Group,
Environmental
Science Assoc.
2005 –
10/2011
$ 1.1
Million
0.24% of
valuation,
per Bldg.
Permit
City of
Pasadena
Aug. 18,
2015
Text Only,
No Map
EIR Placeworks Ongoing
$1.5 Million
($850K EIR)
+ City Staff
Time
0.5% of
valuation,
per Bldg.
Permit.
City of
Riverside Nov. 2007 Program
EIR
Albert A. Webb
Assoc.
4/2002 –
11/2007 Unknown
Flat 10% on
all
developme
nt related
permits.
City of
San
Bernardino
Nov. 1, 2005 EIR
The Planning Center,
Transtech Eng., Inc.,
Stanley R. Hoffman
Assoc., Psomas, San
Buenaventura
Research Assoc.
1999 - 2005 Unknown No
16
COMPARABLE CITIES
Jurisdiction
Current GP
Adoption
Date
CEQA
Document
Consultant Firm Used
for GP/EIR
Time
Total Cost
GP/CEQA
General
Plan
Surcharge
Fee
City of
Stockton
Dec. 11,
2007
Sued by
A.G.
EIR ESA /
Mintier & Assoc.
2002 – 2007
6/2014 - ?
$2.75
Million
No
City of
Novato
Mar. 8, 1996
Res. 21-96
On-Going
EIR
Marjarie Macris,
Paul-Andre
Schabracq & Assoc
Augst 2009 -
Ongoing Unknown
Kern
County
06/15/04
Reso 2004-
192
Program
EIR Quad Knopf 2001 - 2004 $
$0.13 per sq
ft,
per Bldg
Permt
Tulare
County
Aug. 28,
2012
from 2003-
2012
EIR ESA (Sacramento
Office) 2003 - 2012 N/A No
Fresno
County Oct. 3, 2000 EIR
J. Laurence Mintier
& Assoc., Applied
Dev. Econ.,
Crawford Multari &
Clark Assoc., DKS
Assoc., EIP Assoc.,
Montgomery
Watson, David
Taussig & Assoc.
1996 –
10/2000 $660,000 Unknown
17
Appendix D. Research Memorandum – Comparable Cities
Community Development Department - Planning Division
www.BakersfieldCity.us
March 1, 2016
TO: JACQUELYN R. KITCHEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: MARTIN ORTIZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: INFORMATION FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The following information was collected from websites/and personal phone conversations during
February 2016.
The City of Fremont has a population of 224,922 (2013) and has an area of about 90 square miles.
Centerville, Niles, Irvington, Mission San Jose, and Warm Springs were the original five small
independent towns that incorporated to form Fremont in 1956. Today, these places have greatly
expanded, are no longer separate communities, and are considered districts or community plan
areas of the developed city of Fremont. Since incorporation, Fremont has created six more districts,
which it calls "community plan areas" for planning purposes. These include Central, North Fremont,
South Fremont, and Bayside. The two other districts, Baylands and the Hill Areas, are primarily open
space. The city last updated its General Plan in 2011 that included an EIR. The total cost for both
was approximately $500,000. The City hired Lamphier-Gregory Associates to prepare the plan and
EIR. It took them about 2.5 years to complete. The City has a 15% per bldg. permit GP surcharge.
The City of Fresno has a population is about double the City of Bakersfield. The last update of the
General Plan was adopted 2014. The City hired Dyett & Bhatia, Calthorpe Assoc., MW Steele Group,
Economic and Planning Systems, Fehr & Peers (Traffic), and First Carbon Solutions (EIR Lead). It took
over four years to complete. There were over 160 interviews and over 20 public workshops, over 100
presentations to community groups and over 20 meetings of a Citizens Advisory Committee with
background documents.
There were 18 Community Meetings.
The General Plan Citizens Committee held 22 meetings.
The Planning Commission conducted 12 Public Hearings.
The City Council held 5 Public Hearings.
There were reports/interviews as follows: Community Leaders Report, Issues and Options Report,
Community Telephone Survey, and Existing Conditions Report. There were 5 Working Papers as
follows: Economic Development, Urban Form, Healthy Communities, Transportation and Resource
Conservation.
18
Within the EIR: Air Quality criteria pollutant modeling. Biological Resources inventory of rare
endangered plants and California natural diversity database. Cultural Resources included
Paleontological Resources Review and Native American Consultation. Geologic Hazards
Investigation, Greenhouse Gas Information included: Emissions Reduction & Modeling Results and
GHG Reduction Plan. Storm Drainage Technical Report. Transportation included: Roadway
classification; AM Peak Hour Volumes & LOS; PM Peak Hour Volumes & LOS; Traffic Analysis Zones &
Model Inputs; Roadway Functional Classifications; Planned Roadway Number of Lanes; AM Peak
Hour Volumes & LOS Existing + Project; PM Peak Hour Volumes & LOS Existing +Project; and AM & PM
Peak Hour Volumes & LOS Cumulative.
The City of Glendale staff prepared the latest updates to the General Plan with no comprehensive
update. The city has no information on costs and they do not have a GP Surcharge.
The City of Modesto hired Jones & Stokes to complete their last update in 2008 with Master EIR. It cost
approximately $950,000 to prepare documents. They have had a surcharge of pennies on $1,000;
however, this has gone to the General Fund for other services.
The City of Ontario last updated the GP on January 2010 with a Program EIR and the consultant
prepared the Website for the city. The total cost for the Planning Center and other consultants was
over $3 million. They along with others near Ontario have stated that they paid too much for the
product. The city has no GP surcharge fee.
The City of Oxnard last updated the GP in October 2011 with a Program EIR. The update was for the
Goals and Policies and no Land use map revision. They hired Matrix Design Group and Environmental
Science Associates for $1.1 million. The city has a 0.24% of valuation per bldg. permit.
The City of Pasadena last updated the GP with no comprehensive update with an EIR on August
2015. They hired Placeworks for a total of $1.5 million and the EIR cost $850,000 not including staff
time. The city has a 0.5% of valuation per bldg. permit GP surcharge.
The City of Riverside last updated the GP in November 2007 with a Program EIR and hired Albert A.
Webb Associates to prepare the documents. They cannot provide costs but do have a10% flat
surcharge fee on all development related permits.
The City of San Bernardino last updated the GP on November 2005 with an EIR. They hired the
Planning Center, Transtech Engineering, Inc., Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Psomas, San
Buenaventura Research Associates. The cannot provide costs and have no GP surcharge.
The City of Stockton last updated the GP on December 2007 with an EIR by ESA. They cannot provide
total cost and no GP surcharge. They were sued by the California Attorney General.
The County of Kern last updated the GP on June 2004 with a Program EIR by Quad Knopf and have
a $0.13 per sq. ft. per bldg. permit GP surcharge.
The County of Tulare last updated the GP on August 2012 with an EIR by ESA (Sacramento Office)
but cannot provide costs and no GP surcharge.
S:\Metro General Plan\Metro General Plan - 2014-2015 Update\_StartUp Schedule & Docs\Background Info\Other Jursdiction GP
info.docx
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
April 15, 2016
TO: Planning and Development Committee
Bob Smith, Chair
Harold Hanson
Ken Weir
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Referral of Potential Sale of the P/Q Streets Property by
Councilmember Smith
Attached you will find background information on the P/Q Streets property and
a pros and cons list associated with its development as either office or
entertainment use.
The City provided Kern Health Care Systems what the staff considers to be an
acceptable Letter of Intent (LOI) to sell the property (if the City Council so
desires) on April 7th.
As of this writing, we have not received a response.
Background and Timeline for the P/Q Street Property
Since its inception in 2003, the vision of Mill Creek has been to create both a unique place in
Bakersfield, and a place unique to Bakersfield.
While earlier community visioning efforts, such as the Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020 process
that began in 1999 and the 2001 Downtown Design Charrette, recommended improvements
along the Kern Island Canal, those improvements were focused on the canal north of Truxtun
Avenue, primarily around Central Park. However, the Mill Creek vision greatly expanded
upon those earlier efforts by including the areas near the canal between the railroad tracks
and California Avenue. Why? Around the time that the Mill Creek concept was being
developed, efforts were underway to bring to fruition three large projects between the
railroad tracks and California Avenue: the Bakersfield Ice Center, McMurtrey Aquatics
Center, and Maya Cinemas. These large projects helped guide the vision of what would
become South Mill Creek. Today, with the ice center, aquatic center, and movie theatres in
full operation, South Mill Creek remains the last piece in a budding entertainment and
hospitality district.
With its location near those three large facilities to the west, and the Convention Center and
the Marriott Convention Center Hotel to the north, South Mill Creek is positioned to attract
both local residents and convention goers, hence the focus on “entertainment and
hospitality.” As early as 2003, the City’s Economic Development Director was making
community presentations on a proposed “City Walk” south of the convention center
between the canal, “M” Street, California Avenue, and the railroad tracks; this area includes
what would become South Mill Creek. This proposed “urban village” would be 18 acres of
mixed use development including “160 units of family housing, new retail, restaurants, and
theaters.”
In 2005, the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency (RDA) contracted with RRM Design Group to
formalize the Mill Creek Vision Plan. As part of this vision plan, “(n)ew housing and mixed use
development will create a night and day attraction to be enjoyed by residents and visitors
alike.” That plan envisioned retail uses for the portion of South Mill Creek west of the canal as
shown in the attached graphic, highlighted as Item 10.
The emphasis on retail uses was again laid out in a February 20, 2007 “Request for Statement
of Qualifications and Proposals for South Mill Creek” issued by the RDA, for “the development
of a minimum of 80 units of affordable high-rise multi-family residences, 35 condominiums and
approximately 65,000 square feet of retail development on the proposed 10-acre site.”
A Fall 2009 article about Mill Creek in Bakersfield Magazine stated that “Maya Cinemas will
be the base for additional in-line retail in the area, which is being touted as the
‘entertainment/hospitality district.’”
In 2010, City Staff developed and distributed a marketing piece with the headline “Join the
Excitement of Downtown Bakersfield’s Entertainment and Hospitality District in South Mill
Creek.” This piece emphasized the site’s proximity to Maya Cinemas, the Marriott
Convention Center Hotel, Rabobank Convention Center, McMurtrey Aquatic Center,
Bakersfield Ice Center, and the Bakersfield Amtrak station.
Background and Timeline for the P/Q Streets Property
Page 2
Also in 2010, the Kern Council of Governments produced an animated video showing
proposed developments in South Mill Creek. These images showed housing on the east side
of the canal and retail- and pedestrian-based activities on the area on the west side.
In late 2010, the RDA entered into an agreement with Kosmont Companies to “assist in
identifying potential restaurant users for South Mill Creek Commercial Village.” According to
the firm’s website, “Kosmont was retained by the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency to
evaluate and market an approximate 5-acre Agency-owned property known as South Mill
Creek Plaza to restaurant and retail users and developers.”
In June 2011, the RDA issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for South Mill Creek
Commercial Village. According to this document, “(t)he City and RDA desire a plan that will
embrace the new Mill Creek Linear Park, encourage walkability, and include tenants that
complement the amenities in place. Surrounding amenities include Mill Creek Linear Park,
Maya Cinemas, McMurtrey Aquatic Center, Ice Sports Center, Rabobank Arena, Theater
and Convention Center, Amtrak Station, and Marriott Convention Center Hotel.”
Finally, this is what David Lyman wrote in an October 2013 article for Bakersfield Magazine
about City-owned public facilities: “While Mill Creek has been embraced enthusiastically by
the community, the City intends to complete the transformation of the area with the addition
of restaurants and other compatible commercial projects at South Mill Creek. Our vision is to
create additional benefits to the City’s downtown facilities as destination attractions before
and after events.”
On March 20, 2013, the City entered into a contract with AEG to operate Rabobank Arena,
Theater and Convention Center. The agreement provided up to $200,000 towards consulting
services to assist in developing the commercial facilities for South Mill Creek.
The firm’s experience in developing LA Live was cited in the administrative report “to assist
our efforts to secure restaurants needed for the Mill Creek and Maya Cinemas area.”
As evident from these many examples, the vision for South Mill Creek has remained steady
from its inception in 2003: to create a unique area in Bakersfield that builds upon the nearby
convention and entertainment uses for the enjoyment of both Bakersfield residents and
convention-goers, alike.
Historical aspects of the P/Q property itself begins with acquisition, which took place, in
pieces, by the City between 2007 and 2010. A Notice of Completion for the Linear Park,
which included the canal and walkway improvements, south of the railroad, was issued on
February 2, 2009. On January 9, 2012, the condominium and apartment improvements were
completed. The Walkway and Park Amenities project, which included a parking lot and
grass area improvements, were completed on August 12, 2013. Last but not least, on June
11, 2015, the State Controller released control of the property to the City as part of the
Statewide redevelopment dissolution process.
Pro/Con Assessment
Entertainment
Advantages
o Has been the long-term plan to complete the entertainment center area that
serves the Arena and Convention Center, with restaurants that round out the
existing improvements. It creates synergy with surrounding event venues, such
as the Rabobank Arena and Convention Center, Maya Cinemas, McMurtrey
Aquatic Center and San Joaquin Hospital Ice Sport Center.
o Experience in other cities has demonstrated the success of focused
entertainment/dining/hospitality districts (e.g. LA Live and Gaslamp District in
San Diego) that depend on grouping of such businesses in one area.
Edmonton is planning a similar district as part of their new sports arena.
o Makes the complex a one-stop shop for conventions, concert attendees, and
related.
o South Mill Creek is the only opportunity now, or will likely be in the future, for
dining and entertainment, adjacent to an attractive waterway.
o Serves the downtown area. Serves the four new residential developments
across Mill Creek from the site. These residents may have bought or rented with
the expectation that the entertainment businesses would follow.
o Builds strength of the venues around it. People want dinner and a movie,
which would strengthen the attendance at Maya Cinemas.
o Taxable property for both sales and property taxes with solid job creation. May
generate “new” versus simply relocated jobs.
o New property taxes can be captured by the new Economic Opportunity Areas
from reinvestment in new tax base growth downtown.
o Recently the owners of Maya Cinemas offered the use of new market tax
credits for entertainment facilities on this site. That should substantially improve
the potential to locate the desired type of businesses.
Disadvantages
o It has been difficult to attract the desired type of business to the location.
Some speculate that it will not happen.
Pros/Cons Assessment
Page 2
Office
Advantages
o Creates a large number of jobs downtown.
o Workers are likely to shop, dine, and related, downtown.
o Business has a relationship to nearby County offices.
o Have cash to build. The $2.23 million can help the City through the
current fiscal crises.
o Potential parking on-site via construction of a parking garage.
Disadvantages
o Tax exempt – does not build tax base or contribute to tax increment for
new Downtown Economic Opportunity Area. Kern Health Care Systems
rejected a city request that they make payments in lieu of taxes.
o Does little to enhance the surrounding entertainment facilities. An 8-5
use when surrounding property is used nights and weekends. Kern
Health Systems did refuse an offer made by City staff to split the lot, so
that both the office building and entertainment goals would be
achieved. That proposal included the infusion of new market tax credits
to potentially offset any added costs to Kern Health Care Systems.
o Can be located in many other places in the City.
o Severely limits the number of people who can enjoy a beautiful amenity
in South Mill Creek. Large multi-story office building and parking structure
likely to restrict both visual exposure and physical access to Mill Creek
Linear Park by public.
S:
\
J
a
c
q
u
i
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
M
i
s
c
\
S
o
u
t
h
Mi
l
l
Cr
e
e
k
\
2
0
1
6
De
v
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
s
\
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
fo
r
PQ
.
d
o
c
x
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
fo
r
P/
Q
St
r
e
e
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
Ap
p
r
o
x
.
Ar
e
a
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ty
p
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
(s
q
.
ft
.
)
Es
t
.
Sa
l
e
s
Ta
x
Re
v
e
n
u
e
by
Us
e
Es
t
.
Sa
l
e
s
Ta
x
Re
v
e
n
u
e
(T
o
t
a
l
)
Es
t
.
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Est. Jobs By Use Est. Total Jobs
Of
f
i
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
(T
a
x
Ex
e
m
p
t
)
5.
2
4
ac
r
e
s
1 Of
f
i
c
e
10
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
350‐500 (Relocated) 350‐500 (Relocated)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
& Re
t
a
i
l
)
5.
2
4
ac
r
e
s
1 La
r
g
e
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
2 Sm
a
l
l
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
1 Re
t
a
i
l
St
o
r
e
20
,
0
0
0
7‐12
,
0
0
0
(x
2
)
1‐5,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
‐$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
‐$1
5
,
0
0
0
(x
2
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
‐$1
5
,
0
0
0
$7
0
,
0
0
0
‐
$9
5
,
0
0
0
$2
3
,
5
2
5
*
52 56 10 118 New
* Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
:
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
= $1
2
.
8
mi
l
l
i
o
n
;
1%
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
(P
r
o
p
13
)
= $1
2
8
,
0
0
0
;
18
.
3
7
%
of
1%
(C
i
t
y
Sh
a
r
e
in
th
i
s
TR
A
)
= $23,525.25±
Documents
Presented At
The Meeting
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
&
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
C
O
M
.
Ap
r
i
l
1
9
,
2
0
1
6
Hi
g
h
-
S
p
e
e
d
R
a
i
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
P
l
a
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ap
r
i
l
1
9
,
2
0
1
6
ME
T
R
O
P
O
L
I
T
A
N
BA
K
E
R
S
F
I
E
L
D
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
UP
D
A
T
E
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
,
2
0
1
6
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
R
e
c
a
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
&
N
e
e
d
7
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
O
t
h
e
r
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
’
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Ne
e
d
f
o
r
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
2
0
0
2
P
l
a
n
•
Me
t
r
o
P
l
a
n
n
o
w
1
4
Y
e
a
r
s
O
l
d
•
St
a
t
e
I
s
s
u
i
n
g
n
e
w
G
P
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
•
Ne
w
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
&
N
e
w
G
r
o
w
t
h
Up
d
a
t
e
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
A
i
r
,
G
H
G
,
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
A
g
)
•
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
/
N
e
e
d
s
(
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
e
w
e
r
,
R
o
a
d
s
)
•
Gr
o
w
t
h
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
&
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Up
d
a
t
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
To
d
a
y
’
s
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
GP
U
p
d
a
t
e
W
h
i
t
e
p
a
p
e
r
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
Le
g
a
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
a
s
o
n
s
t
o
U
p
d
a
t
e
Co
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
C
i
t
i
e
s
Fu
n
d
s
&
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
R
o
l
e
Up
d
a
t
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Ke
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
t
o
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
N
e
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
G
P
19
9
0
-
J
o
i
n
t
C
i
t
y
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
2
0
1
0
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
19
9
4
-
M
e
t
r
o
B
a
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
20
0
0
-
V
i
s
i
o
n
2
0
2
0
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
20
0
2
-
M
B
G
P
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
&
E
I
R
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
20
0
6
-
R
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
r
U
p
d
a
t
e
(J
o
i
n
t
C
C
/
B
O
S
)
20
0
9
–
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
&
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
20
1
6
–
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
-
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
GP
U
p
d
a
t
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
2/
2
/
1
6
–
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
D
e
v
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
M
t
g
.
N
o
.
1
Up
d
a
t
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
&
R
e
a
s
o
n
s
Th
e
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
a
l
l
o
w
s
l
o
c
a
l
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
e
v
i
s
e
th
e
i
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
l
a
n
s
a
s
o
f
t
e
n
a
s
t
h
e
y
d
e
e
m
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
;
a
n
d
th
e
co
d
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
a
m
a
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
t
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
fo
r
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
ex
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
wh
i
c
h
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
y
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
5
5
8
8
.
Th
e
S
t
a
t
e
’
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
a
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
up
d
a
t
e
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
a
s
n
e
w
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
MB
G
P
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
&
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
t
o
B
e
g
i
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
M
B
G
P
w
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
2
a
n
d
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
a
2
0
-
ye
a
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
a
n
d
C
E
Q
A
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
l
o
c
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
Ne
w
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
G
H
G
,
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
t
c
.
)
Ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
o
n
Co
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
C
i
t
i
e
s
–
C
o
s
t
s
&
T
i
m
e
In
s
e
r
t
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
16
C
O
M
P
A
R
A
B
L
E
C
I
T
I
E
S
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
G
P
A
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
CE
Q
A
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
Ti
m
e
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
s
t
Size
(s
q
.
m
i
l
e
s
)
Approx. Population
Ci
t
y
o
f
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
De
c
.
1
1
,
2
0
0
2
E
I
R
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
2
b
y
s
t
a
f
f
S
t
a
f
f
T
i
m
e
151
(4
0
8
s
q
m
i
GP)360,000
Ci
t
y
o
f
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
De
c
.
1
3
,
2
0
1
1
E
I
R
6
/
2
0
1
0
-
1
2
/
2
0
1
1
A
p
p
r
o
x
.
$
5
0
0
K
9
0
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
Fr
e
s
n
o
20
1
4
E
I
R
20
0
7
–
2
0
1
4
40
m
t
g
s
+
1
7
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
$1
.
9
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
+
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
f
f
T
i
m
e
112520,000
Ci
t
y
o
f
Gl
e
n
d
a
l
e
19
8
6
-
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
El
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
Va
r
i
e
d
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
b
y
s
t
a
f
f
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
3
1
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
Mo
d
e
s
t
o
20
0
8
E
I
R
1
9
9
2
-
2
0
0
8
A
p
p
r
o
x
.
$
9
5
0
K
3
7
2
1
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
On
t
a
r
i
o
Ja
n
.
2
7
,
2
0
1
0
EI
R
1
/
2
0
0
8
–
1
/
2
0
1
0
$3
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
In
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
50166,000
Ci
t
y
o
f
Ox
n
a
r
d
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
E
I
R
2
0
0
5
–
1
0
/
2
0
1
1
$
1
.
1
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
2
5
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
Pa
s
a
d
e
n
a
Au
g
.
1
8
,
2
0
1
5
E
I
R
20
0
9
–
2
0
1
5
10
0
+
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
m
t
g
s
$1
.
5
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
$
8
5
0
K
E
I
R
)
+
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
f
f
T
i
m
e
23127,000
Ci
t
y
o
f
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
No
v
.
2
0
0
7
E
I
R
4
/
2
0
0
2
–
1
1
/
2
0
0
7
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
9
9
3
0
4
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
Be
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
No
v
.
1
,
2
0
0
5
E
I
R
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
5
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
6
2
2
1
3
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
St
o
c
k
t
o
n
De
c
.
1
1
,
2
0
0
7
(S
u
e
d
b
y
A
.
G
.
)
EI
R
20
0
2
–
2
0
0
7
6/
2
0
1
4
-
?
$2
.
7
5
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
6
5
3
0
3
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
No
v
a
t
o
Ma
r
.
8
,
1
9
9
6
E
I
R
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
0
9
-
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
U
n
k
n
o
w
n
3
0
5
5
,
0
0
0
Ke
r
n
Co
u
n
t
y
Ju
n
e
1
5
,
2
0
0
4
E
I
R
2
0
0
1
-
2
0
0
4
$
8
,
1
4
2
8
5
0
,
0
0
0
Tu
l
a
r
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Au
g
.
2
8
,
2
0
1
2
E
I
R
2
0
0
3
-
2
0
1
2
N
/
A
4
,
8
6
3
4
5
5
,
0
0
0
Fr
e
s
n
o
Co
u
n
t
y
Oc
t
.
3
,
2
0
0
0
E
I
R
1
9
9
6
–
1
0
/
2
0
0
0
$
6
6
0
,
0
0
0
6
,
0
1
1
9
5
5
,
2
7
2
Ci
t
y
o
f
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Ma
r
c
h
3
,
2
0
1
5
(U
p
d
a
t
e
)
EI
R
20
0
4
-
2
0
0
9
=
2
0
3
0
P
l
a
n
20
1
2
-
1
5
=
2
0
3
5
U
p
d
a
t
e
$4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
9
7
.
9
2
4
7
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
S
a
n
t
a
Mi
19
8
4
,
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
L
a
n
d
U
Ci
O
l
2
0
1
0
EI
R
6
Y
e
a
r
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
$2
.
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
8.392,000
Fu
n
d
s
&
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
R
o
l
e
Co
s
t
s
c
a
n
r
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
$
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
-
$
4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
Ci
t
y
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
“
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
T
r
u
s
t
f
u
n
d
”
Fl
a
t
f
e
e
o
f
$
8
4
p
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
i
n
c
e
2
0
0
5
(
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
r
a
i
s
e
d
to
$
1
0
5
-
s
t
i
l
l
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
s
)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
:
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
1
.
8
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
R
o
l
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
(
v
a
r
y
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
-
f
r
a
m
e
s
)
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
D
r
a
f
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
C
E
Q
A
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
–
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
&
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
(
A
i
r
/
G
H
G
,
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
c
a
y
,
e
t
c
.
)
Up
d
a
t
e
D
r
a
f
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
E
I
R
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
,
Co
u
n
c
i
l
I
n
p
u
t
,
&
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
F
i
n
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
&
E
I
R
;
+
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
,
ma
p
s
,
G
I
S
/
C
A
D
f
i
l
e
s
,
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
&
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Ba
k
e
r
s
f
i
e
l
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
U
p
d
a
t
e
2
0
0
9
D
r
a
f
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
(
l
e
g
a
l
,
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
,
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
,
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
,
e
t
c
.
)
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
a
t
C
i
t
y
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
S
c
o
p
e
o
f
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Po
l
i
c
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
:
A
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
&
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
G
a
s
e
s
,
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
L
a
n
d
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
&
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
N
e
e
d
s
,
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
e
t
c
.
La
n
d
U
s
e
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
In
f
i
l
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
(r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
t
/
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
P
r
o
s
p
e
r
i
t
y
,
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
A
r
e
a
,
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
,
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
Me
t
h
o
d
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ke
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
t
o
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
Co
u
n
t
y
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
1.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
a
s
j
o
i
n
t
-
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
;
2.
Mo
v
e
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
a
s
C
i
t
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
1.
Re
t
u
r
n
t
o
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
w
i
t
h
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
t
e
p
s
a
n
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
;
2.
Se
e
k
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
w
i
t
h
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
t
e
p
s
,
th
e
n
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
t
o
U
p
d
a
t
e
S
c
o
p
i
n
g
;
3.
Pr
o
c
e
e
d
t
o
U
p
d
a
t
e
S
c
o
p
i
n
g
t
o
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
f
u
l
l
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
&
C
o
s
t
G
o
a
l
s
?
SO
I
d
e
f
i
n
e
s
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ap
r
i
l
1
9
,
2
0
1
6
ME
T
R
O
P
O
L
I
T
A
N
BA
K
E
R
S
F
I
E
L
D
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
UP
D
A
T
E
Ke
r
n
He
a
l
t
h
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
Co
u
Ke
r
n
He
a
l
t
h
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ap
r
i
l
14
,
20
1
6
4/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
c
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
Bo
b
Sm
i
t
h
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
■
Wh
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
is
th
e
Be
s
t
Ch
o
i
c
e
■
KH
S
Se
a
r
c
h
Ar
e
a
■
GE
T
Ma
p
■
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
■
Cr
i
m
e
La
b
ex
a
m
p
l
e
■
Sa
n
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
ex
a
m
p
l
e
■
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ma
p
■
So
u
t
h
Mi
l
l
Cr
e
e
k
Vi
s
i
o
n
■
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
n
t
e
x
t
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
is
Be
s
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
KHS
■
Be
t
t
e
r
to
se
r
v
e
cl
i
e
n
t
s
■
Co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
■
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
■
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
■
Be
s
t
se
r
v
e
s
th
e
gr
e
a
t
e
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
KH
S
Se
a
r
c
h
Ar
e
a
Bu
c
k
O
w
n
e
n
s
B
l
v
d
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
&
Q
S
t
.
Se
l
f
-
H
e
l
p
C
r
e
d
i
t
U
n
i
o
n
GE
T
Ma
p
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
Se
l
f
-
H
e
l
p
En
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
GE
T
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ce
n
t
e
r
Fo
x
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
BC
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Si
m
i
l
a
r
Of
f
i
c
e
Us
e
Cr
i
13
0
0
18
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
(C
r
i
m
e
La
b
& Fa
m
i
l
y
Support)
●
On
e
C
i
t
y
B
l
o
c
k
●
10
7
,
0
0
0
S
F
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
●
13
5
,
0
0
0
S
F
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
:
Sa
n
Jo
a
q
u
i
n
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ma
p
Mi
l
l
Cr
e
e
k
Il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
t
h
Mi
l
l
Cr
e
e
k
Si
t
e
Pl
a
n
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Be
f
o
r
e
C
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Af
t
e
r
A
f
t
e
r
Th
i
s
i
m
a
g
e
c
a
n
n
o
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
b
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
d
.
Ma
y
a
C
i
n
e
m
a
Co
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
in
S
o
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Mi
d
-
r
i
s
e
5
7
-
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
u
n
i
t
s
.
Fo
x
Th
e
a
t
e
r
P
TB
C
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Se
l
f
-
H
e
l
p
En
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
BC
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Sq
u
a
r
e
Cr
i
m
e
L
a
b
KC
S
O
S
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
No
r
t
h
B
o
f
A
T
o
w
e
r
Fi
r
s
t
P
r
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n