HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/30/2020Staff: Committee Members:
Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Bruce Freeman – Chair
Councilmember, Bob Smith
Councilmember, Willie Rivera
Regular Meeting of the
Planning and Development Committee
of the City Council – City of Bakersfield
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North, First Floor, Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301
A G E N D A
1.ROLL CALL
2.ADOPT MAY 21, 2020 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3.PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4.NEW BUSINESS
A.Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Rezoning
Policies – Boyle/Johnson
5.DEFERRED BUSINESS
A.General Plan Update – Boyle
6.COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7.ADJOURNMENT
SPECIAL NOTICE
Public Participation and Accessibility
June 30, 2020 Planning and Development Committee
On March 18, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20, which includes
a waiver of Brown Act provisions requiring physical presence of the Committee members or the
public in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
CORRECTED
Planning and Development Committee
Regular Meeting June 30, 2020 Agenda
Page 2
Based on guidance from the California Governor’s Office and Department of Public Health, as
well as the County Health Officer, in order to minimize the potential spread of the COVID-19
virus, the City of Bakersfield hereby provides notice that as a result of the declared federal,
state, and local health emergencies, and in light of the Governor’s order, the following
adjustments have been made:
1.The meeting scheduled for June 30, 2020, at 12:00 p.m. will have limited public
access.
2. Consistent with the Executive Order, Committee members may elect to attend
the meeting telephonically and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as
if they were physically present.
3.The public may participate in each meeting and address the Committee as
follows:
If you wish to comment on a specific agenda item, submit your comment
via email to the City Clerk at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us no later than
5:00 p.m. the Monday prior to the Committee meeting. Please clearly
indicate which agenda item number your comment pertains to.
If you wish to make a general public comment not related to a specific
agenda item, submit your comment via email to the City Clerk
at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us no later than 5:00 p.m. the Monday
prior to the Committee meeting.
Alternatively, you may comment by calling (661) 326-3100 and leaving a
voicemail of no more than 3 minutes no later than 5:00 p.m. the Monday
prior to the Committee meeting. Your message must clearly indicate
whether your comment relates to a particular agenda item, or is a general
public comment. If your comment meets the foregoing criteria, it will be
transcribed as accurately as possible.
If you wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item as it is being
heard, please email your written comment to the City Clerk
at City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us. All comments received during the
meeting may not be read, but will be provided to the Committee and
included as part of the permanent public record of the meeting.
Committee Members
Staff: Jacqui Kitchen Councilmember, Bruce Freeman Chair
Assistant City Manager Councilmember, Willie Rivera
Councilmember, Bob Smith
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 21, 2020
12:00 p.m.
City Hall North – Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m.
1.ROLL CALL
Committee members present: Councilmember, Bruce Freeman, Chair
Councilmember, Bob Smith (participated by telephone)
Committee member absent: Councilmember, Willie Rivera
City Staff: Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager
Anthony Valdez, Administrative Analyst
Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
Phil Burns, Building Director
Paul Johnson, Planning Director
Additional Attendees: Members of the Public
2.ADOPT OCTOBER 8, 2019 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
The report was adopted as submitted.
3.PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Cedric Crawford commented on Short Term Rentals.
/S/ Jacqui Kitchen
DRAFT
S:\Council Committees\2020\Planning and Development\05_May
Page 2
JK:mc:pa
4.NEW BUSINESS
A.Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Landscaping in Commercial Parking
Lots
Development Services Planning Director Johnson provided a PowerPoint presentation
summarizing memorandum included in the agenda packet regarding the landscaping in
commercial parking lots referral made by Councilmember Freeman at the February 19, 2020,
City Council meeting regarding.
Committee Chair Freeman and Committee member Smith requested staff conduct further
research for ways to monitor compliance and examine whether the existing policy and tree
palate reaches 40% of shade coverage for future consideration of enforcement and policy
development.
B.Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Vacant Building Ordinance
Development Services Building Director Burns provided a PowerPoint presentation
summarizing the memorandum included in the agenda packet regarding the vacant building
ordinance referral made by Councilmember Gonzales at the February 19, 2020, City Council
meeting.
Committee member Smith proposed reducing the registration fee from $300.00 especially for
applicants that are not a nuisance. He suggested there be consideration given to forgiving
liens if the property owners builds affordable housing.
Committee Chair Freeman recommended an annual registration fee instead of a monthly
fee. He requested staff conduct additional research by inquiring with other cities that have
existing ordinances on their practices and explore increasing administrative penalties
associated with vacant and unmaintained buildings and present the information at a future
meeting.
C.Committee Discussion and Recommendation Regarding Short-term Rental Ordinance
Development Service Director Boyle provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the
memorandum included in the agenda packet regarding developing a short-term rental
ordinance referral made by Councilmember Gonzales at the March 11, 2020 City Council
meeting.
Committee Chair Freeman stated that he would not like the City to facilitate vacation rentals,
and would therefore not support a vacation rental ordinance. Committee member Smith
stated that an ordinance could help with enforcement. The item was deferred to a future
meeting when all members of the Committee could be present after the COVID-19
pandemic.
D.Discussion and Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of the 2020 Committee
Meeting Schedule
The Committee removed the August 25th, October 27th, and December 1st meetings and
added September 22nd and November 17th as regular meeting dates. The modifications were
unanimously approved.
5.COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
6.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:04 p.m.DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 2020
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bruce Freeman, Chair
Bob Smith
Willie Rivera
FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendments Dissolving the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), assigning its
responsibilities to the Planning Commission and the Planning Director.
This report is in response to a referral from Councilman Freeman at the May 20, 2020 City Council directing staff
to review the responsibilities of the BZA so as to streamline development.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the BZA has discretionary authority per Section 17.64.020 of the Municipal Code, which states:
“The board of zoning adjustment shall have authority to grant, subject to appeal to the city council under the
provisions of this title, the following:
A. Modification or waiver of:
1. Automobile parking space or loading requirements on private property, and
2. The height, yard and lot area regulations on a lot or lots, including, but not limited to,
modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero‐lot‐line
or other typical subdivision development, and
3. Fence, wall and hedge regulations as may be necessary to secure an appropriate improvement
on a lot; and
B. Conditional use permits permitting any use in any zone in which that use is not permitted by this title,
subject to the findings set forth in Section 17.64.060(C);
C. Wireless facilities right‐of‐way permits for wireless telecommunication facilities proposed to be
located within the public right‐of‐way pursuant to Chapter 12.30.”
Thus, the City’s BZA has authority of three entitlement processes: the Zoning Modification, Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) and a wireless facilities permit specific to the public right‐of‐way.
Planning and Development Committee
Re: BZA Dissolution
June 30, 2020
Page 2
ANALYSIS
When reviewing comparable cities for broader understanding of zoning entitlement hierarchy and strategy, staff
looked to discern how each municipality permitted specific uses, the types of permits required and the degree of
discretionary authority assigned to each of the permitting entities. Ten comparable cities/counties were surveyed.
The results of that survey are:
MUNICIPALITY
Administrative
Permit Discretionary Permit CUP Review
Bakersfield DRA CUP BZA
Glendale AUP CUP PC
Modesto None CUP PC
Riverside None MCUP and CUP PC
Stockton AUP CUP PC
Fresno None CUP PC
Ontario AUP CUP PC
Visalia AUP CUP PC
Pasadena None MCUP and CUP PC
Fresno County DRA CUP PC
Kern County None CUP PC
Note: DRA (Director Review and Approval), AUP (Administrative Use Permit), MCUP (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
Conditional Use Permit
Bakersfield is the only municipality within the referenced comparables that does not assign the authority to review
and approve CUPs to its Planning Commission (PC). In some cases, cities even required a lesser minor use permit
(MCUP) to be reviewed by the PC. Most zoning use schedules included permitted uses, uses approved
administratively and uses requiring a CUP where the discretionary permit was decided by the PC. Thus, there is
overwhelming rationale for reassigning discretionary authority of conditional use permits to the Planning
Commission.
Zoning Modification
When looking at the comparable municipalities concerning the Zoning Modification, administrative permits, such
as an Administrative CUP (ACUP) or Director Review and Approval (DRA), were reviewed by various governmental
bodies or individuals, including a Development Review Committee, the Planning Director, the Development
Services Director, Community Development Director or their appointee. Because of the minor nature of the
available modifications within Bakersfield’s ordinance, these “modifications” from standards typically would be
granted via an administrative permit process, such as a Zoning Administrator Permit, Director Review and
Approval, or Administrative Use Permit, only forwarding the modification request to the PC when it was being
processed concurrently, or when the decision of the lower body was appealed. The City’s current Zoning
Ordinance already has a Director Review and Approval process that could easily process zoning modification
requests and absorb the administrative function of the BZA.
Wireless Facilities Permit
The final entitlement currently under BZA authority is the wireless facilities right‐of‐way permit for wireless
telecommunication facilities proposed to be located within the public right‐of‐way. This specialized permit was
codified into ordinance in 2016. To date, no application for a wireless facilities permit has ever been processed.
Planning and Development Committee
Re: BZA Dissolution
June 30, 2020
Page 3
Summary
In summary, based on the whole of research completed, the role of the BZA could be dissolved, integrated its
discretionary authority into the PC and its ministerial functions into the existing DRA. This would improve Planning
Division efficiencies while streamlining the development process wherever applicable. Certain cost savings would
also be enjoyed by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to accomplish the desired outcome, ordinance amendments have been prepared that accomplished the
following:
The Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) and its authority is eliminated and removed from the code.
A Director Review and Approval (DRA) replaces the BZA, taking on an administrative/ministerial
permitting function. The concept of a DRA is already utilized within the use schedules of the ordinance.
Ordinance guiding DRA authority and processes is added, separate from ordinance specific to CUP which
is moved into the authority of the PC.
Modifications would be processed at the DRA level, with referral and/or appeal to the PC in certain cases.
The review and discretionary approval of CUPs would be moved to the PC, and integrated with processes
associated with zone changes, per existing ordinance.
Where the BZA is referenced within the code as the permitting agency, such as is found in Title 15, that
responsibility will be assigned to the PC.
Where the BZA is assigned to hear appeals, that responsibility will be assigned to the PC, or the DRA,
whichever is most appropriate.
There are also numerous references to the BZA that are distributed throughout the Municipal Code. The
references are located in various locations, including but not limited to the following:
Chapter 1.28 Administrative Procedure
Chapter 2.28 Planning And Zoning Agencies
Chapter 12.64 Specific Trails Plan
Chapter 15.66 Drilling For And Production Of Petroleum
Chapter 15.72 Historical Preservation
Chapter 15.74 Flood Damage Prevention
Chapter 17 Numerous references.
The ordinance amendments address each of the references and, dependent upon the context, assign them
appropriately to either the Planning Director (DRA) or the PC, ultimately creating a more efficient framework of
governance.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendments.
NEXT STEPS
Provide staff direction on amending Title 17 (and associated titles) to dissolve the responsibilities of the BZA and
assign those responsibilities upon the Planning Commission and the Planning Director.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Ordinance
Page - 1
ORDINANCE NO. _____________
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.64, SECTIONS 020, 040,
042, 050, 060, 090, AND 110, AMENDING SECTION 1.28.030,
SECTION 2.28.080, SECTION 2.28.110, SECTION 12.64.020,
SECTION 15.66.020, SECTION 15.66.030, SECTION 15.72.040,
SECTION 15.74.180, SECTION 17.04.155, SECTION 17.08.180,
SECTION 17.45.050, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.56, SECTIONS 010,
030, 040, 050, 060, AND 080, SECTION 17.59.020, CHAPTER 17.60,
SECTIONS 020 AND 030, SECTION 17.62.050, SECTION 17.63.050,
SECTION 17.66.180, SECTION 17.68.040, AND SECTION
17.71.040, AND REPEALING SECTION 2.28.090 OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DISOLVING THE
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND ASSIGNING ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 17.64.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.020 Authority of board of zoning adjustment Planning Director
The board of zoning adjustment Planning Director shall have authority to grant
Director Review and Approval permits, subject to appeal to the city council
Planning Commission under the provisions of this title, subject to the following:
A. Modification or waiver of:
1. Automobile parking space or loading requirements on private
property, and
2. The height, yard and lot area regulations on a lot or lots, including,
but not limited to, modification of such regulations for some or all lots within a
subdivision to facilitate zero-lot-line or other typical subdivision development, and
3. Fence, wall and hedge regulations as may be necessary to secure
an appropriate improvement on a lot; and.
Page - 2
B. Land use approvals as provided for within the various zone districts of this
title. Conditional use permits permitting any use in any zone in which that use is
not permitted by this title, subject to the findings set forth in Section 17.64.060(C);
C. Wireless facilities right-of-way permits for wireless telecommunication
facilities proposed to be located within the public right-of-way pursuant to
Chapter 12.30.
SECTION 2.
Section 17.64.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.040 Initiation.
A. Applications for director review and approval permits modifications and
conditional use permits shall be filed with the planning director or his/her
appointed designee on forms provided by the planning director.
B. Applications for conditional use permits shall be filed with the planning
director or his/her appointed designee on forms provided by the planning
director.
CB. Proceedings for redistricting of property may be initiated by the city
council, planning commission, planning director or by filing with the planning
director an application signed by one or more of the record owners of the parcel
of property which is the subject of the application or an agent of the owner
authorized in writing. In the event that an application by owners involving more
than one parcel of land is submitted for district amendment or adoption, owners
of parcels representing at least sixty percent of the area involved must sign the
application. The names of all record owners of all land involved must be stated
on the application.
DC. Proceedings for amendment of any provisions of Title 17 of this code, other
than amendments changing property from one zone to another, may be initiated
by city council action, planning commission action or action of the city staff.
SECTION 3.
Section 17.64.042 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.042 Fees.
The city council shall by resolution set fees for application for director review and
approval modifications, conditional use permits, changes of zones and for
Page - 3
appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination of the board of
zoning adjustment, provided for in this chapter. Such fees shall be in amounts
necessary and appropriate to reimburse the city for all costs related to the
processing of and acting upon each such application or appeal. No application
or appeal shall be deemed complete until the prescribed fee has been received
by the city.
SECTION 4.
Section 17.64.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.050 Hearings—Notices.
A. Procedure for director review and approval permits. Any application for a
director review and approval permit shall be considered by the Planning Director
after it is publicly noticed in the following manner:
1. Not less than ten days before the planning director decision, a direct
mailing shall be sent to the owners and/or occupants of property located within
300 feet of the boundaries of the project site, as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll.
2. In addition, notice shall also be given by first class mail to any person
who has filed a written request with the planning division. The city may impose a
reasonable fee on persons requesting such notice for the purpose of recovering
the cost of such mailing.
3. Such notice shall include the following information: the name of the
applicant, nature of the request, location of the property, the environmental
determination, the proposed date of “Planning Director Decision” (10 days from
date of notice), and the appropriate method and deadline for written or verbal
comments to be submitted to the City for consideration.
4. Substantial compliance with these provisions shall be sufficient and a
technical failure to comply shall not affect the validity of any action taken
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section.
5. Alternatively, at his/her discretion, the planning director may refer the
proposed use directly to the planning commission for a public hearing and
decision. If the proposed use is referred to the planning commission, the noticing,
hearing, and planning commission appeal procedures of subsection B of Section
17.064.050, Hearings - Notices, shall be followed.
6. For any director review and approval permit application filed in
Page - 4
conjunction with any discretionary application (including a conditional use
permit, tentative subdivision map, etc.), the applicant shall file the application
concurrently, for review with the application requiring discretionary approval.
BA. Procedure for conditional use permits and zone changes. Upon the receipt
in proper form of a complete application for a modification, conditional use
permit, or zone change, along with the fee adopted pursuant to Section 3.70.040,
the planning director shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon in the
following manner:
B. 1. Not less than ten days before the date of such public hearing, notice
of the date, time and place of hearing, along with the location of the property
and the nature of the request shall be given in the following manner:.
21. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days
prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property of the owners duly
authorized agent, and to the project applicant.
32. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days
prior to the hearing to each local agency (if not the city) expected to provide
water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the
project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly
affected.
43. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days
prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll within three hundred feet of real property that is the subject of the
hearing. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered
pursuant to this paragraph or subsection (B)(21) of this section is greater than one
thousand, in-lieu of mailed or delivered notice, notice may be provided by
placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one
newspaper of general circulation within the city at least ten days prior to the
hearing. Notice of hearing upon each application for a conditional use permit to
allow drilling for and production of petroleum pursuant to Chapter 15.66 shall be
mailed to such owners of all property that is the subject of the hearing, and the
production operator of record of subject real property as shown in the State of
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources (herein D.O.G.G.R.) records as of thirty days of the date of application
of the conditional use permit. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the
operators name and address from D.O.G.G.R and submitting such
documentation from the division with the application for a conditional use permit.
54. Notice shall be published in at least one newspaper of general
circulation within the city at least ten days prior to the hearing.
Page - 5
65. Notice shall be mailed to every person filing with the planning
director a written request for notice.
76. In addition, not less than twenty days but not more than sixty prior to
the hearing on any general plan amendment, specific plan, or zone change, or
conditional use permit, the applicant shall post signs on the property indicating
the date, time, and place of the hearing on the proposed general plan
amendment, specific plan, or zone change, or conditional use permit.
a. One sign shall be posted for every three hundred feet of street
frontage, or portion thereof, with a maximum of two signs per street
frontage. If no portion of the property fronts an existing public street, at least
one sign shall be posted on the property nearest the point of legal access
from a public street or as otherwise directed by the planning director.
b. For general plan amendment, specific plan, zone change, and
conditional use permit on an undeveloped site, Tthe size of the sign shall be
eight feet wide by four feet high. Lettering style, formatting, mounting, and
materials to be used shall be as set forth in the administrative policy manual
approved by the development services director.
c. For a conditional use permit on a developed site in all non-
residential zones, the size of the sign shall be four feet wide by four feet high.
The sign shall be posted along the street frontage, but not in the public right
of way. In addition, a smaller sign (e.g., 11” x 17”), at the discretion of the
planning director, shall be placed in the window of the facility where the
activity will occur. For a conditional use permit on a developed site in a
residential zone, the provisions of BMC 17.60.070.C. shall apply.
cd. The applicant shall file with the planning department, on a
form provided by the city, photograph(s) of the posted sign(s) and a
declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, that the property has been
posted according to the requirements of this section.
de. If the applicant fails to post the signs within the specified time,
and if the photographs and declaration are not filed with the planning
department within five days of the signs being posted, the public hearing
may be postponed until the signs are posted and proof of posting has been
submitted.
ef. The applicant shall remove all signs posted pursuant to this
section within ten days after final city council action on the general plan
amendment, specific plan, or zone change, or conditional use permit.
Should the applicant withdraw their application for a general plan
amendment, specific plan, or zone change, or conditional use permit, all
Page - 6
signs posted shall be removed within ten days of the withdrawing of the
application.
fg. Should the applicant fail to remove any sign within the
specified time, the city may remove any such sign and the costs thereof
shall be borne by the applicant.
C. When proceedings are initiated for the amendment of any provision of Title
17, other than amendments changing property from one zone to another, or
changing the boundary of any zone, a public hearing shall be held. Notice of
such hearing shall be given once by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city, which notice shall state the time, date and place of such
hearing and a general description of the nature of the proposed text
amendment.
SECTION 5.
Section 17.64.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.060 Modifications Director review and approval permits and conditional use
permits—Hearing—Decision and findings.
A. Director review and approval permit. The planning director shall render a
decision on the application within ten (10) days after the proposed date of
“planning director decision” included in the public notice, as described in
subsection A of Section 17.64.050. The decision shall grant in modified form,
conditionally grant, or deny the requested director review and approval permit
as follows:
1. Approval/Conditional Approval. In the case where no public
comments in opposition to the request have been received and the planning
director is able to make the appropriate findings as noted in subsection B of
Section 17.64.060, the planning director will grant approval or conditional
approval. For conditional approvals, the planning director may apply conditions
of approval upon the entitlement as noted in subsection D of Section 17.64.060.
2. Referral to planning commission. In the case where public comments
in opposition to the request have been received, the planning director shall either
deny or refer the proposed request directly to the planning commission for a
public hearing and decision. If the proposed use is referred to the planning
commission, the noticing and hearing procedures subsection B of Section
17.064.050, Hearings - Notices, shall be followed.
3. Denial. In the case where public comments in opposition to the
request have been received and the planning director is unable to make the
Page - 7
appropriate findings as noted in subsection B Section 17.64.060, the Director will
deny the application. Such denial may be appealed per Section 17.64.090.
B. Findings Required for Modification director review and approval permit. A
modification director review and approval permit shall be granted only when it is
found that:
1. The granting of such modification director review and approval
permit would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to
the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the property is
located; and
2. The granting of the modification director review and approval permit
is necessary to permit an appropriate improvement or improvements on a lot or
lots, including, but not limited to, modification of such regulations for some or all
lots within a subdivision to facilitate zero-lot-line or other atypical subdivision
development; and
3. The granting of the modification director review and approval permit
would not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of Title 17 of this code.
CA. Conditional use permit. Following the public hearing, the board of zoning
adjustment, planning commission or city council may grant, grant in modified
form, conditionally grant, or deny the requested waiver or modification
conditional use permit. Such decision shall be reflected in a formal resolution
containing the findings and the facts upon which the findings are based.
DC. Findings Required for Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit shall
be granted only when it is found that:
1. The proposed use is deemed essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare; and
2. The proposed use is in harmony with the various elements and
objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans.
ED. Conditions. The issuance of any modification director review and approval
permit or conditional use permit pursuant to this title may be granted subject to
such conditions as may be deemed appropriate or necessary to assure
compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and the various
elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans and
policies of the city or to protect the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.
Dedications of real property may be required and improvements of public streets
shall be in accordance with standard specifications of the city on file in the office
of the city engineer.
Page - 8
FE. Exercise of Rights. The exercise of rights granted by a modification director
review and approval permit or conditional use permit shall be commenced within
two years after the date of the final decision.
GF. Termination of Rights. The modification director review and approval permit
or conditional use permit shall terminate, and all rights granted therein shall lapse,
and the property affected thereby shall be subject to all of the provisions and
regulations of Title 17 applicable to the zone in which such property is classified,
when any of the following occur:
1. There is a failure to commence the exercise of rights as required by
subsection E of this section, or within any duly granted extension;
2. There is a discontinuance for a continuous period of one year of the
exercise of the rights granted.
HG. Extension of Time. Any time limit contained in this chapter or in any decision,
for good cause shown, may be extended by the body issuing the initial
conditional use permit or modification director review and approval permit for a
period which shall not exceed one year.
1. The property owner may request an extension of the time limit by
written application to the planning director or designee. Such application shall
be filed before the expiration date of the conditional use permit or modification
director review and approval permit. The application shall provide reasons for
extension of the permit or modification.
2. Upon the receipt in proper form of an application for an extension,
along with the fee adopted pursuant to Section 3.70.040, the planning director
shall fix a time and place of public hearing thereon. The hearing shall be noticed
as set forth in subsection B of Section 17.64.050.
3. Following the public hearing, the hearing body shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny extension of the conditional use permit or
modification director review and approval permit.
IH. Revocation of Rights. The board of zoning adjustment planning commission
may revoke the rights granted by such modification director review and approval
permit or conditional use permit and the property affected thereby shall be
subject to all of the provisions and regulations of Title 17 of this code applicable
as of the effective date of revocation. Such revocation shall be for good cause,
including, but not limited to, the failure to comply with conditions or complete
construction as required by subsection F of this section, the failure to comply with
any condition contained in the modification director review and approval permit
or conditional use permit, or the violation by the owner or tenant of any provision
Page - 9
of the municipal code pertaining to the premises for which such modification
director review and approval permit or conditional use permit was granted.
1. Notice of the intent to revoke shall be given, together with the
reasons therefor, either by personal delivery to the occupant of such premises, to
the owner of such premises, to any person indicated in the permit as being
entitled to exercise the permit, or by deposit in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to such person(s) at his or her last known business or residence
address as the same appears in the records of the modification director review
and approval permit or conditional use permit. Service by mail shall be deemed
to have been completed at the time of deposit in the post office, or any United
States mailbox.
2. The decision of the board of zoning adjustment planning commission
shall be final, subject to appeal to the city council within ten days after notice.
3. When a proper appeal has been filed, public hearing upon the
matter shall be set before the city council within a reasonable time after the
appeal is filed.
4. Not less than ten days before the date of such public hearing, notice
of the time and place of the hearing before the body shall be given as set forth
in subsection B of Section 17.64.050.
5. On appeal, the city council may affirm the revocation, overturn the
revocation or modify the order of revocation.
6. The decision of the city council shall be final and conclusive.
JI. Date of Issuance. No permit or license for any use involved in an application
for a modification director review and approval permit or conditional use permit
shall be issued until same has become final by reason of the failure of any person
to appeal or by reason of the action of the city council.
SECTION 6.
Section 17.64.090 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.090 Appeals – Modifications, Cconditional use permits and zone changes.
A. The action of the board of zoning adjustment or planning commission shall
be final unless, within ten calendar days after the decision, the applicant or any
other person shall appeal therefrom in writing to the city council by filing such
appeal with the city clerk. A decision of the city council shall be final and
conclusive.
Page - 10
B. The appeal shall include the appellants interest in or relationship to the
subject property, the decision or action appealed, and specific reasons why the
appellant believes the decision or action from which the appeal is taken should
not be upheld.
C. The city clerk shall set the date for hearing the appeal. Notice of the appeal
hearing shall be given as set forth in Section 17.64.050.
D. For modifications and conditional use permits, on appeal following the
hearing, the city council may grant, grant in modified form, or deny the requested
modification or conditional use permit. The decision of the council shall be final
and conclusive.
E. For zone changes, on appeal following a public hearing, the council may
enact into ordinance the zoning amendment giving rise to the appeal or any
alternative zoning district more restrictive than that proposed, may affirm any
conditional approval and recommendation of the planning commission and, or
may decide against adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
The decision of the council shall be final and conclusive.
SECTION 7.
Section 17.64.110 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.64.110 Conditions for reapplication.
Where an application for a zone change, or conditional use permit or
modification has been finally determined by the city council, or planning
commission or board of zoning adjustment, no reapplication or new application
for the same zone change, or conditional use permit or modification shall be
considered or heard by the planning commission, or city council or board of
zoning adjustment for a period of one year. However, where a change has
occurred which, in the sound discretion of the city council, or planning
commission or board of zoning adjustment (whichever previously made the final
determination) indicates that a new hearing should be had on an application for
a zone change and where a showing has been made that the public interest
would best be served by reconsideration or new consideration, the prohibition of
this subsection may be waived after a finding by the body petitioned that the
public interest would best be served by a reconsideration of a new hearing.
Page - 11
SECTION 8.
Section 1.28.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1.28.030 Definitions.
In this chapter, unless otherwise specifically indicated:
A. “City agency” means any or all of the following listed agencies or boards:
Board of zoning adjustment;
Board of charity appeals and solicitations;
Inter-group relations board;
Board of building and housing appeals;
Fire prevention board of examiners and appeals;
Fire department pension board;
Bakersfield art commission.
B. “Order of repeal” means any resolution, order or other official act of a city
agency which expressly repeals a regulation in whole or in part.
C. “Regulation” means every rule, regulation, order or standard of general
application or the amendment, supplement or revision of any such rule,
regulation, order or standard adopted by any city agency to implement,
interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its
procedure, except one which relates only to the internal management of the city
agency.
SECTION 9.
Section 2.28.080 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2.28.080 Members of planning commission and board of zoning adjustment.
The planning commission and the board of zoning adjustment created prior to the
adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, are continued in existence and
operation as the planning commission and the board of zoning adjustment of the city,
and the appointed members of each shall be and constitute the members of the
Page - 12
planning commission and of the board of zoning adjustment, respectively, until the
expiration of the terms for which they were or shall be appointed.
SECTION 10.
Section 2.28.090 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its
entirety, as follows:
2.28.090 Board of zoning adjustment—Created—Membership—Terms—Vacancies—
Alternates—Removal.
A. There is created a board of zoning adjustment of the city, which shall consist of
the building director, the public works director and a member of the city manager’s
office selected by the city manager.
B. An alternate shall participate and vote in the place of any member who is absent
or disqualified for an economic interest in a matter before the board of zoning
adjustment.
C. The alternate for the building director shall be the assistant building director. The
alternate for the public works director shall be the assistant public works director. In the
event there is no assistant director to serve as an alternate, the city manager shall
designate the alternate from that respective department. The alternate for the member
of the city manager’s office shall be another member of the city manager’s office
selected by the city manager.
D. Members of the board of zoning adjustment and alternates serve until they no
longer hold the position making them a board member or alternate or until the make-up
of the board is changed by ordinance.
SECTION 11.
Section 2.28.110 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2.28.110 Planning department—Duties.
The planning department division of the city shall act in advisory capacity on all
matters relating to all applications decided by the planning commission,
including conditional use permits, variances, and modifications, and shall provide
technical and secretarial services to the board of zoning adjustment planning
commission.
SECTION 12.
Section 12.64.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
12.64.020 Definitions.
Page - 13
A. “Advisory agency”. The following bodies shall constitute the advisory
agency for projects subject to this chapter:
1. For projects subject to Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 16, the
advisory agency shall be defined by Section 16.08.020 of said Title;
2. For conditional use permits, general plan or specific plan
amendments, zone changes, or other permits “development” permits and/or
approvals not specifically listed in this section, the planning commission shall be
the advisory agency;
3. For projects subject to the authority of the board of zoning
adjustment, such as conditional use permits or modifications, the board of zoning
adjustment shall be the advisory agency;
4. For grading plans, site plan review, building permits or other ministerial
permits, the planning director shall be the advisory agency.
B. “Applicant” means a person, firm, corporation, partnership or association
who proposes to develop or causes to be developed and/or use real property as
defined in “development” for himself or for others.
C. “Development” means any action taken requiring a permit or application
to seek amendment, approval or authorization under provisions of any grading,
zoning, parcel map, or final map subdivision ordinance, including actions, such
as grading permit approval, zoning change, conditional use permit, modification,
variance, tentative parcel map approval, and tentative subdivision map
approval. It also means converting an existing legal land use entitlement to
another specific purpose by altering the intended density, intensity or use of an
existing authorized entitlement.
D. “Fair market value” is defined in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section
15.80.100 which requires a written appraisal report acceptable to the Planning
Director; except as further defined in Section 12.64.100B in the case where a trail
or support facility, which serves a subject phase, has been acquired by the city
prior to said development.
E. “Phase of the Specific Trails Plan”. A “phase” of the Specific Trails Plan
identifies the locality of an area planned for trails and support facilities.
F. “Specific Trails Plan”. A planning document adopted by the city council
for the purpose of setting policy and identifying trails and support facilities within
the city.
Page - 14
SECTION 13.
Section 15.66.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
15.66.020 Definitions.
The terms set forth in this chapter shall have the meanings herein unless it is
apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended.
“Abandonment” means the permanent plugging of a well in accordance with
the requirements of the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources of the state of California, and the removal of all
equipment related to the well, including restoration of the drill site as required by
these regulations.
“A.N.S.I.” means the American National Standards Institute.
“A.P.I.” means the American Petroleum Institute.
“A.S.T.M.” means the American Society for Testing Materials.
“Blowout” means the uncontrolled flow of gas, liquids or solids (or a mixture
thereof) from a well onto the surface.
“Blowout preventor” means a mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or other device
or combinations of such devices secured to the top of a wells casing including
valves, fittings, and control mechanisms connected therewith designed and
capable of preventing a blowout.
“Board of zoning adjustment” or “B.Z.A.” means the board of zoning adjustment
of the city of Bakersfield as defined in Title 2 of this code.
“Building Code” means the most recent edition of the Building Code as adopted
by the city of Bakersfield.
“Cellar” means an excavation in which the wellhead is located.
“Completion of drilling” on a well site is deemed to occur for the purpose of this
code upon: (1) initiation of disassembly or removal of the drilling rig from any one
well on the drill site; (2) thirty days after setting of a well head on any one well on
the drill site; or (3) thirty days after the drilling equipment has been removed from
the site. Completion has not occurred if drilling, testing, or remedial operations
are resumed on that one well before the end of any thirty-day period.
Page - 15
“Derrick” means any framework, tower or mast together with all the
appurtenances to such structure placed over a well for the purpose of drilling,
raising or lowering pipe, casing, tubing or other drilling, completion production or
injection tools or equipment out of or into the well bore.
“Desertion” means the cessation of operations at a well site where suspension of
drilling operations and removal of drilling machinery has occurred where the
operator cannot be located or contacted, and no activity has taken place for at
least six consecutive months, or production equipment or facilities have been
removed and no activity has taken place for at least two consecutive years,
unless the D.O.G.G.R has granted an extension of time pursuant to their
regulations. This definition does not apply to observation wells.
“Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources” or “D.O.G.G.R” means that
division of the Department of Conservation of the state of California.
“Drill” or “drilling” means to bore a hole in the earth for the purpose of completing
a well, exploration or testing. Drilling includes all operations through the removal
of the drilling equipment from the drill site.
“Drill island” means the discrete area zoned drilling island (DI) district in
accordance with Chapter 17.46 of this code.
“Drill site” means the land required to be reserved in accordance with Section
15.66.080(C) as part of a rezoning, subdivision or other development for future
drilling and/or production operations.
“Dwelling” means any building or portion thereof providing living facilities for one
or more persons, including permanent provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking
and sanitation, and includes both single-family and multiple-family residential
facilities.
“Gas” means the gaseous components or vapors contained in or derived from
petroleum or natural gas.
“Grade” (adjacent ground elevation) means the lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the
structure and the property line or, when the property line is more than five feet
from the structure, between the structure and a line five feet from the structure.
“Hazardous well” means an oil or gas well that presently poses a danger to life,
health, or natural resources as determined by the D.O.G.G.R under the provisions
of the public resources code.
“Idle well” means a well for which production has been suspended for a minimum
of five consecutive years, except any well being held for future programs,
Page - 16
including those being retained for use under a secondary or tertiary recovery plan
or for disposal, which has been approved by the D.O.G.G.R but has not been
abandoned or deserted as defined in this code and by the D.O.G.G.R. This
definition does not apply to observation wells.
“Lessee” means the party possessing the right(s) to drill, develop and produce oil,
gas or other hydrocarbons from the subsurface of land with said right(s) being
specifically conveyed by a written oil, gas, mineral or surface lease.
“Lessor” means the party owning an interest in and to any oil, gas or other
hydrocarbons as may be produced from a tract of land who has conveyed the
right(s) to drill, develop and produce said substances to another party (lessee) by
a written oil, gas, mineral or surface drilling rights lease. This party may or may not
be the surface owner.
“Maintenance” or “maintain” means the upgrading, repair, cleaning, upkeep
and replacement of parts of a structure and equipment. Maintenance of a
structure does not alter or lessen the character, strength, or stability of the
structure.
“N.F.P.A.” means the National Fire Protection Association.
“Noise sensitive receptor” means and includes a land use associated with human
activities which is particularly sensitive to noise. Examples of noise sensitive
receptors include hospitals, libraries, schools, residential uses, and those uses
deemed noise sensitive by the city council, planning commission or board of
zoning adjustment.
“Observation well” means a well bore for the purpose of observing petroleum
reservoir characteristics, including but not limited to, temperature, saturation,
pressure, and fluid movement, as recognized by the D.O.G.G.R.
“Operator” means a person, including corporations, partnerships and
associations, whether proprietor, lessee, contractor, or agent or officer of the
same, in charge of or in control of the drilling, maintenance, and operation of a
well or wells as shown on the permit application.
“Petroleum” means and includes any and all hydrocarbon substances found in a
natural state, including, but not limited to, crude oil, natural gas, natural gasoline,
and other related substances.
“Petroleum lease” means a property right with respect to which a lessee enjoys
the right to drill, develop, produce and possess petroleum resources for a
determinable period. May also be referenced as a subsurface lease or mineral
rights lease.
Page - 17
“Production operation” means and includes all oil or gas recovery activities
following completion of drilling, redrilling or testing of a well.
“Public assembly” refers to a building, structure or site, or portion thereof, for the
gathering together or accommodation of fifty or more persons for such purposes
of deliberation, education, worship, entertainment, lodging, medical care,
amusement, drinking and dining, or awaiting transportation.
“Redrilling” means any drilling operation, including deviation from original well
bore, to recomplete the well in the same or different geologic zone, excluding
sidetracking.
“Remedial” means any work on a well, other than drilling or redrilling.
“Sidetracking” means drilling, excluding substantial deviation from the original
well bore to recomplete a well in the same or different geologic zone.
“Sump” means a lined or unlined, covered or uncovered excavation pit which
holds petroleum or other liquids incidental thereto, or solids associated with drilling
or production operations.
“Tank” means a structure or container, with a minimum volume of sixty gallons,
used in conjunction with either the drilling or production of a well used for holding,
storing, or treating liquids or solids, or otherwise associated with drilling or
producing operations.
“Uniform Fire Code” or “U.F.C.” means the most recent edition of the Uniform Fire
Code as adopted by the city of Bakersfield.
“Well” means any hole drilled into the earth for the purpose of exploring for or
producing oil or gas; injecting fluids or gas for stimulating oil or gas recovery;
repressuring or pressure maintenance of oil or gas reservoirs; disposing of oil field
waste fluids; seismic testing; or any hole drilled into the earth within or adjacent to
an oil or gas pool for the purpose of observation of subsurface conditions.
“Well servicing” means and includes remedial or maintenance work or work
performed to maintain or improve production from an already producing facility.
“Well site” means that surface area used for oil or gas drilling or extraction
operations, for injection purposes in enhanced petroleum recovery operations
after drilling is completed and oil and gas recovery activities following completion
of drilling or redrilling of a well. A well site may include one or more wells.
Page - 18
SECTION 14.
Section 15.66.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
15.66.030 Permits.
A. No person shall drill, operate or maintain any well or well site for petroleum,
natural gas, or related drilling, nor operate or maintain any production operation
without first obtaining a permit. Applications for drilling/production permits shall
be made in writing to the director of prevention services, or designee, on such
forms as provided by the director. Permits are classified as follows:
1. Class 1. The well site and/or production operation is:
a. Within an area zoned for residential development; or
b. Located less than five hundred feet from a dwelling except
those for use by a caretaker or night security on the same parcel, or public
assembly as defined in this chapter.
2. Class 2. The well site and/or production operation is:
a. Within an area zoned for commercial, light manufacturing or
open space; or
b. Located between five hundred and one thousand feet from a
dwelling unit except those for use by a caretaker or night security on the
same parcel, or public assembly as defined in this chapter, provided no
well or related structure for production is located less than five hundred feet
from said uses.
3. Class 3. The well site and/or production operation is:
a. Within an area zoned for general manufacturing, heavy
manufacturing, or agricultural, or is within the primary floodplain pursuant
to the restrictions in subsection (B)(1) of this section, or the secondary
floodplain, provided no well or related structure for production is located
less than five hundred feet from a dwelling except those for use by a
caretaker or night security on the same parcel, or public assembly as
defined in this chapter; or
b. Located within the state approved boundaries of the following
state designated oil fields as defined by the state D.O.G.G.R., regardless of
Page - 19
the zone district or distance from dwellings or public assembly uses as
defined in this chapter:
i. Kern River Oil Field (D.O.G.G.R. Map 457),
ii. Kern Bluff Oil Field ( D.O.G.G.R. Map 439),
iii. Portion of the Fruitvale Oil Field encompassing Sections
14 (west of State Highway 99), 21 (south of Meany Avenue), 22
(except Tracts 6003 and 6042), 23 (west of State Highway 99), 26
(north of the Cross Valley Canal and west of State Highway 99), 27
(north of the Cross Valley Canal), and 28 (east of the Friant-Kern
Canal), all within T29S, R27E (D.O.G.G.R. Map 435);
c. An area zoned DI (drilling island district) zone or PE (petroleum
extraction combining district) zone.
B. Well sites and/or production operations shall be prohibited in the following
areas in the city: primary floodplain of the Kern River, except that area located
within the state approved boundary of the Kern River oil field as delineated on
Map 457 of the D.O.G.G.R.
C. Drilling by Conditional Use Permit. Class 1 permits shall not be issued until a
conditional use permit is granted by the board of zoning adjustment (B.Z.A.)
planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.64 (Modifications Director Review
and Approval, Conditional Use Permits, Amendments and Appeals), except that
a conditional use permit shall not be required for any well on a lot within an
approved tentative or recorded subdivision map that is specifically identified as
a drill site for the extraction of petroleum, gas, and/or other hydrocarbons. Any
conditions required under the conditional use permit shall be in addition to those
imposed by this chapter for a Class 1 permit. The planning commission may
modify any condition set forth in the development standards and conditions if it
determines that there will be no material detriment to the public welfare or safety
of persons and property located within a reasonable distance of such a well.
1. In addition to the application requirements for a conditional use
permit pursuant to pursuant to Chapter 17.64 (Modifications Director Review and
Approval, Conditional Use Permits, Amendments and Appeals), an applicant shall
also submit the following:
a. A plot plan or site development plan drawn at the scale
specified by the planning director, which includes the following
information:
i. Topography and proposed grading.
Page - 20
ii. Location of all proposed well holes and related
accessory equipment, structures, and facilities to be installed and
any abandoned wells if such are known to exist.
iii. Location of all existing dwellings and buildings used for
other purposes, located within three hundred feet of the proposed
well holes, identification of the use of each structure, and distances
between well holes and existing buildings.
iv. North arrow.
b. Narrative description of the proposed development, including:
i. Acreage or square footage of the property.
ii. Nature of hydrocarbon development activity.
iii. Description of equipment to be used, including height of
derrick.
iv. Distance to all existing buildings.
v. Phasing or development schedule.
c. A copy of the letter, or other official documentation, from
D.O.G.G.R. containing the name and address of the operator of record, if
any, as shown in D.O.G.G.R. records as of thirty days prior to the date the
conditional use permit application is submitted to the planning department
or a written statement from D.O.G.G.R. that there is no party of record with
D.O.G.G.R. relative to the subject site.
d. Additional information may be required, as part of an
application for a conditional use permit, as provided in Chapter 17.64
(Modifications Director Review and Approval, Conditional Use Permits,
Amendments and Appeals).
2. Notice of the public hearing shall be expanded to include property
owners within one thousand feet of the property line containing the well site
subject of the hearing and the operator of record as shown in D.O.G.G.R. records
as of thirty days of the date of application for a conditional use permit.
3. If a producing well or service well is not commenced upon land
subject to the terms of the conditional use permit, or within any extended period
thereof, the conditional use permit shall expire and the premises shall be restored
Page - 21
as nearly as practicable to its original condition. No permit shall expire while the
permittee is continuously conducting drilling, redrilling, completing or
abandoning operations, or related operations, in a well on the lands covered by
such permit, where operations were commenced while said permit was otherwise
in effect. Continuous operations are operations suspended not more than thirty
consecutive days.
4. Any permit issued pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be
revoked or modified pursuant to Section 17.64.060(HI).
D. The owner or operator of any well permitted by this chapter shall provide
the director of prevention services, or designee, a copy of the written notice to
the D.O.G.G.R. of the sale, assignment, transfer, conveyance, or exchange by
the owner or operator of the well within thirty days after the sale, assignment,
transfer, conveyance, or exchange. In addition, the owner or operator shall also
acknowledge that they have notified the new owner or operator of all existing
terms and conditions of the city’s permit.
E. Modification to any standards in this chapter may be approved by the
B.Z.A. planning director pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.64.
F. Every permit issued by the director of prevention services, or designee,
under the provisions of this chapter shall expire by limitation and become null and
void if the work authorized by such permit is not commenced within one year from
the date of such permit. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit
shall be first obtained to do so, to determine if the permit classification as defined
in subsection A of this section has changed.
G. The director of prevention services, or designee, may, in writing, suspend or
revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this chapter whenever the permit is
issued in error on the basis of incorrect information supplied by the applicant
which results in there being a violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of
the provisions of this chapter.
H. Any city official or employee, for the purpose of reviewing a permit
application, transfer of operation/ownership, complaint, compliance or any other
investigation pursuant to the chapter, shall have the right to enter upon the
premises for inspection provided they give prior notice of such to the operator.
I. Well sites and production operations established prior to September 19,
1992, may continue to operate pursuant to permits issued for them, and shall be
exempt from the new the provisions of this chapter. However, significant changes
or modifications that necessitate new permits as required by the director of
prevention services, or designee, or B.Z.A. the planning director, shall be required
to comply with the provisions of this chapter or obtain modifications as permitted
in subsection E of this section.
Page - 22
J. The city may impose fees to offset the costs associated with permit
processing and condition monitoring pursuant to Chapter 3.70.
K. Attainment of permits pursuant to this chapter does not relieve the
applicant of the responsibility in obtaining permits as required by law from other
local, state or federal agencies. All required federal, state, county, and city rules
and regulations shall be complied with at all times including, but not limited to,
the rules and regulations of the following agencies:
1. Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources;
2. City of Bakersfield fire department;
3. Kern County health department;
4. Regional Water Quality Control Board;
5. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
SECTION 15.
Section 15.72.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
15.72.040 Historic preservation commission—Powers and duties.
The commission shall have the following powers and duties:
A. Establish criteria and conduct or cause to be conducted a comprehensive
survey of properties within the boundaries of the city, and publicize and
periodically update survey results.
B. Adopt specific guidelines for the designation of cultural resources, including
landmarks, landmark sites, and historic districts.
C. Maintain a local register of designated cultural resources, designated
historic districts and designated areas of historic interest.
D. Review and correspond with the city council and city departments as to
matters as they relate to the cultural resources of the community.
E. Assist in recommending prescriptive standards to be used by the council in
reviewing applications for permits to alter, remove, preserve, protect, reconstruct,
rehabilitate, restore or stabilize any designated cultural resource or historic district.
Page - 23
F. Recommend to the city council the purchase of fee or less-than-fee
interests in property for purposes of cultural resource preservation and
designation.
G. Investigate and report to the city council on the use of various federal,
state, local, or private funding sources and mechanisms available to promote
cultural resource preservation in the city.
H. Preserve, restore, maintain, and operate designated cultural resources and
historic properties owned or controlled by the city.
I. Recommend for approval or disapproval, in whole or in part, applications
for cultural resource, historic district, or area of historic interest designation
pursuant to procedures set forth in this chapter.
J. Review and comment on applications for land use decisions as such
applications may be referred to the commission by the planning commission, the
board of zoning adjustment or the city council. Comments and
recommendations shall be forwarded to the referring body.
K. Cooperate with local, county, state and federal governments in the pursuit
of the objectives of historic preservation.
L. Provide information, upon the request of the property owner, on the
restoration, alteration, decoration, landscaping or maintenance of any cultural
resource or property within a historic district or area of historic interest.
M. Participate in, promote, and conduct public information, educational, and
interpretive programs pertaining to cultural resources, historic districts and areas
of historic interest.
N. Perform any other functions that may be designated by the city council.
O. Meet at irregular intervals as determined by the city manager or his or her
designee. All meetings shall be noticed and open to the public.
P. Quorum. Three members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business.
Q. Identify as early as possible conflicts between the preservation of cultural
resources and alternative land uses and make recommendations to the
appropriate legislative body.
Page - 24
R. Establish a procedure for the review of and comment on historic
preservation certification applications for federal tax incentives for both
designated cultural resources and designated historic districts.
SECTION 16.
Section 15.74.180 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
15.74.180 Board of zoning adjustment Planning commission designated.
A. The board of zoning adjustment planning commission, as established by
Section 2.28.0930 of this code, is designated to hear and decide appeals and
requests for exemptions from the requirements of this chapter. Except as may be
required in connection with other proceedings with which determination on a
requested exemption is combined, no public hearing is required. The decision of
the board of zoning adjustment planning commission on appeals and requests
for exemptions shall be final.
B. The board of zoning adjustment planning commission shall hear and
decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision or
determination made by the administrator of this chapter.
C. In passing upon appeals and requests for exemption, the board of zoning
adjustment planning commission shall consider all technical evaluations, all
relevant factors, standards, etc., specified in other sections of this chapter, and:
1. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury
of others;
2. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood
damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;
4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to
the community;
5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where
applicable;
6. The availability of alternative locations, for the proposed uses that are
not subject to flooding or erosion damage;
Page - 25
7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated
development;
8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and
floodplain management program for that area;
9. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles;
10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment
transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable,
expected at the site;
11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood
conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such
as sewer, gas, electrical, and water system and streets and bridges.
D. Generally, exemptions may be issued for new construction and substantial
improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to
and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood
level, providing subsection D of Section 15.74.190 has been fully considered. As
the lot size increases beyond the one-half acre, the technical justification required
for issuing the variance increases.
E. Upon consideration of the factors of subsection D of Section 15.74.190 and
the purpose of this chapter, the city of Bakersfield board of zoning adjustment
may attach such conditions to the granting of exemptions as it deems necessary
to further the purpose of this chapter, and upon the issuance of any exemption
to construct a structure below the base flood level that notice will be given that
increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as twenty-five
dollars for one hundred dollars of coverage may result, and that such construction
below the base flood level increases the risk to life and property. The board of
zoning adjustment may require the flood plain administrator to record a copy of
this notice in the office of the county recorder in such a manner that it appears in
the chain of title of the affected parcel of land.
F. The floodplain administrator shall maintain a record of all appeal actions,
including the justification for the issuances of any exceptions, and report such
exceptions issued in required reports submitted to the Federal Insurance
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Page - 26
SECTION 17.
Section 17.04.155 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.04.155 Conditional uses.
“Conditional use” is a use which requires special review and control by the board
of zoning adjustment planning commission or the city council to ensure
compatibility with other existing or permitted uses in the vicinity.
SECTION 18.
Section 17.08.180 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.08.180 Fence, walls and hedges—Regulations.
A. In the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, no fence, wall or hedge located in the
rear or side yards shall exceed a height of six feet unless a greater height is
required by city or state regulations for noise attenuation or sight screening. On
all through lots located in these zones in which the rear lot line abuts a state
highway, major highway or secondary highway and is below the grade of the
roadway, at the roadway grade, or less than ten feet above the roadway grade,
a masonry wall as defined by Section 17.04.462 shall be provided.
B. In the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R4 zones, no fence, wall or hedge located in the
required front yard shall exceed a height of four feet, except in the following
situations, in which such fence or wall may be higher but shall not exceed a height
of six feet:
1. Where, as determined by the planning commission, a side yard is
adjacent to an arterial or collector street and a higher wall is necessary to finish
the required subdivision wall.
2. Where, as determined by the city council, planning commission, or
board of zoning adjustment planning director, a higher fence or wall is necessary
for purpose of noise attenuation.
C. Reserved.
D. In the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones no barbed or electrified wire shall be used
or maintained in or about the construction of a fence, wall or hedge along the
front, side or rear lines of any lot, or within three feet of said lines, and no sharp
wire or points shall project at the top of any fence or wall less than six feet in height.
Page - 27
E. In the C-O, C-C, C-1, C-2, M-1 and M-2 zones no barbed or electrified wire
shall be erected, installed, used or maintained or caused to be erected, installed,
used or maintained on, in or about any fence, wall or hedge along the front, side
or rear lines of any lot, nor shall any barbed wire be erected, installed, used or
maintained or caused to be erected, installed, used or maintained, for fencing
purposes, or as a barrier across or around any lot, or portion thereof, or around
any building or structure upon or along any street, alley or public way, unless the
lowest strand of barbed wire is installed not less than six feet three inches above
the highest adjoining grade on either side of such fence; where barbed or
electrified wire is erected, installed, used or maintained in accordance with this
subsection, it shall not extend over or into any abutting property or public right-
of-way and shall, in all cases, either extend in toward the owner’s side of such
fence or directly vertical, subject to approval by the building director.
F. In the A zone barbed or electrified wire for agricultural fencing purposes
shall be permitted to be erected, installed, used or maintained at locations at
least one thousand three hundred feet from any residential area as defined in
Section 17.32.020, and not otherwise, subject to approval by the building director.
G. Fences constructed prior to September 1, 1983, intended to act as
protective enclosures and to make canals inaccessible to small children, are
exempted from the restrictions of subsections D, E and F of this section.
SECTION 19.
Section 17.45.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.45.050 Permits.
Before that portion of any nonconforming structure which exceeds the height
limitation established by the airport approach zoning map and Section 17.45.020
may be structurally altered and before any nonconforming structure or tree may
be replaced, reconstructed, allowed to grow higher or replanted, a permit must
be secured from the board of zoning adjustment planning director authorizing
such structural alteration, replacement, reconstruction or change. These portions
of an existing nonconforming structure below the applicable height limitations
may be structurally altered, repaired and added to, and those portions of an
existing nonconforming structure above the applicable height limitation may be
repaired and minor replacements made therein without securing such a permit
unless such structural alteration, repair, addition, or enlargement exceeds the
applicable height limitation. No such permit shall be granted that would allow the
creation of an airport hazard or permit a nonconforming structure or tree or
nonconforming use to be made or become higher or become a greater hazard
Page - 28
to air navigation than it was on the date that this chapter was made applicable
to a particular airport. All other applications for such permits may be granted.
SECTION 20.
Chapter 17.56 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.56.010 Definitions.
A. “Board of zoning adjustment” means the board of zoning adjustment of the
city.
AB. “Building official” means the chief building inspector of the city.
BC. “Fallout shelter” means a structure designed and used exclusively for the
purpose of protecting human life from the effects of nuclear weapons.
CD. “Yard area” means land unoccupied or unobstructed, except for such
encroachments as may be permitted by this title surrounding a building.
17.56.020 Permit required.
No person, firm or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move,
improve, remove, convert or demolish any fallout shelter in the city or cause the
same to be done, without first obtaining a permit from the building official of the
city.
17.56.030 Zoning.
A fallout shelter may be constructed in and shall be a permissible accessory use
in any land use zone within the city, provided, that the structure is built in
compliance with all regulations and restrictions applicable to such zoned area
under Title 17 of this code entitled Zoning, including but not limited to front yard,
side yard and setback regulations, with the exception of those modifications to
zoning regulations or restrictions which have been waived by the board of zoning
adjustment approved within a director review and approval permit or the city
council as provided in Section 17.56.040.
17.56.040 Waiver of restrictions.
A. When special circumstances exist which are applicable to a parcel of
property upon which any interested person desires to construct a fallout shelter
such as size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, access or similar physical
factors which make it impossible for the applicant to comply with all zoning
regulations or restrictions which would otherwise be applicable to such property,
the applicant may file a verified application for a director review and approval
Page - 29
with the board of zoning adjustment planning director requesting that such
regulations or restrictions be modified or waived.
B. The board of zoning adjustment planning director shall hold a public
hearing on said application within ten days after the application is filed consistent
with Section 17.64.050 (Hearings—Notices) at which time the board planning
director may either grant or deny the application.
C. In granting any such application the board planning director may impose
such conditions as it may deemed necessary or desirable to protect the
neighborhood or adjoining properties.
17.56.050 Shelters within front and side yard areas.
Notwithstanding any provision in Section 17.56.040 to the contrary, a fallout shelter
shall not be permitted by the board of zoning adjustment planning director in any
front yard or any side yard as defined in Title 17 of this code unless the following
conditions are satisfied:
A. The fallout shelter will not protrude above the existing grade of the lot,
with the exception of ventilators and entrance ways;
B. The entrance ways will not exceed twenty-four inches in height above
the existing grade of the lot;
C. Projecting vents will not exceed more than thirty-six inches above the
existing grade of the lot;
D. The structure will not be located closer than five feet to the front
property line, the official plan line or the future street line as defined on official
master plans.
17.56.060 Appeal.
A. Any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the board of zoning
adjustment planning director concerning any matter affecting his application for
the installation of a fallout shelter may appeal to the city council planning
commission.
B. All decisions of the board of zoning adjustment planning director acting
under the authority of this chapter shall be final and conclusive upon the
expiration of ten days following the decision of the board director unless a written
appeal is filed with the city council planning department within said ten-day
period.
Page - 30
C. The secretary of the board of zoning adjustment planning director shall
cause a written notice of the decision to be mailed to the applicant.
17.56.070 Structural standards.
Each fallout shelter must conform to the requirements of Chapter 15.12.
17.56.080 Time limit for construction pursuant to waiver of restrictions.
Any waiver of restrictions granted pursuant to Section 17.56.040 shall be null and
void if the applicant does not exercise the privilege of constructing a fallout
shelter within six months following the date the application is granted by the
board of zoning adjustment planning director or by the city council planning
commission.
17.56.090 Use restricted.
A. Any fallout shelter which has been constructed in a front or side yard area
pursuant to Section 17.56.040 shall not be used for any purposes other than
protection from nuclear fallout and the storage of emergency supplies.
B. The use of such a shelter for purposes other than those referred to in this
section shall constitute a public nuisance.
17.56.100 Covenant to remove.
Whenever any application for a waiver of restrictions is granted pursuant to
Section 17.56.040 the owner of the property upon which the fallout shelter is to be
constructed shall record a covenant in the chain of title for the benefit of the city
stating that the owner and his successors in interest will remove said fallout shelter
within six months after the adoption by the city council of a resolution declaring
that such shelters are no longer necessary for the protection of human life.
SECTION 21.
Section 17.59.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.59.020 Review process.
A. All wireless telecommunication facilities not in the public right-of-way,
including antennas, towers, mounted poles, and satellite dishes shall be subject
to review as follows:
Page - 31
1. Exemptions. The following installations are exempt from the provisions
of this chapter:
a. The installation of one ground-mounted satellite dish antenna for
the private, personal use of the occupants of a dwelling, which is less than
ten feet in diameter and less than fifteen feet in height and complies with
all applicable accessory structure setbacks.
b. One satellite dish antenna for the private, personal use of the
occupants of a dwelling, which is less than twenty-four inches in diameter
installed on a building providing that such antenna does not extend above
the roof-line of the building.
c. One single-pole, tower roof, or ground-mounted television, or
amateur radio antenna for the private, personal use of the occupants of a
dwelling provided such antenna is no more than sixty-five feet in height
from grade and complies with all applicable accessory structure setbacks.
B. Planning Director Review and Approval. The following shall be reviewed by
the planning director or designee, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
applicant shall include with their plans all drawings, renderings, photographs and
other necessary documents that clearly shows how the proposed facilities will
meet the required development standards.
1. Antennas mounted on a building or rooftop and that are screened
from view from all adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent residentially zoned
or designated properties.
2. Antennas architecturally integrated within a building or structure, or
concealed so as not to be recognized as an antenna, such as clock towers,
carillon towers, flagpoles, and steeples. These antennas may be permitted in any
zone district.
3. Antennas mounted on other existing structures including, but not
limited to, water tanks, pump stations, utility poles, field lighting and signs
(excluding outdoor advertising structures), where the antenna height does not
exceed the structure height nor project more than eighteen inches from the
structure. The antennas shall also be painted to match the color of the building or
structure, and/or be covered or architecturally screened with materials using the
latest stealth design features so that it is indistinguishable from the main structure.
These antennas may be permitted in any zone district.
4. Antennas mounted on existing electrical transmission towers in any
zone district where the antenna height is no more than ten feet above the height
Page - 32
of the tower, the antenna blends with the architectural design of the tower, and
the utility company has given written permission for such co-location.
5. Co-location of new equipment on an existing legally approved
antenna or tower that blends with the architectural design of the existing facility
and meets all other requirements of this chapter.
6. Modification of existing telecommunications facilities that existed
prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter where the
physical area of the reconfigured or altered antenna does not exceed twenty-
five percent of the original approval, blends with the architectural design of the
existing facility, and meets all other requirements of this chapter.
7. Stand-alone monopole camouflaged as a palm tree, pine tree or
other natural object.
8. Stand-alone slim-line monopole with flush-mounted vertical
antennas employing the latest stealth design features. A slim-line monopole shall
measure no more than twenty-four inches in diameter at the base that tapers
smaller toward the top. The maximum distance of antenna arrays projecting from
the pole shall not exceed eighteen inches.
C. Board of Zoning Adjustment Director Review and Approval. The following
shall be reviewed by the board of zoning adjustment planning director, subject
to a conditional use director review and approval permit in accordance with
Chapter 17.64. The applicant shall include with their plans all drawings, renderings,
photographs and other necessary documents that clearly shows how the
proposed facilities will meet the required development standards.
1. Facilities that do not meet the requirements of subsection B of this
section or the development standards in Section 17.59.030.
2. New uncamouflaged monopoles.
3. All other wireless communication facilities not in the public right-of-
way, including lattice towers.
4. Placement of a commercial antenna or satellite dish antenna on any
building not screened from view from all adjacent public rights-of-way and
adjacent residentially zoned or designated properties.
5. On property zoned or designated residential, residential suburban,
agricultural, or open space unless otherwise provided by this chapter.
Page - 33
SECTION 21.
Section 17.60.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.60.020 Permits.
A. Permit Required. No sign shall be painted, placed, pasted, posted, printed,
tacked, fastened, constructed, erected, re-erected, installed, altered or
otherwise permitted or maintained without first obtaining a permit from the
building director in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and
Chapter 15.36 of this code.
B. Permit Not Required. Regardless of subsection A of this section, permits from
the building director are not required for the following signs:
1. Real estate sales, rent, lease or open house; construction/home
improvement, future facility use or tenant signs, and agricultural signs not
exceeding sixteen square feet in area and six feet in height, placed on the
property subject to such sign;
2. Changing of the advertising copy or message on a theater marquee,
readerboard, menuboard, or similar such sign;
3. Repainting or cleaning of an outdoor advertising structure or
changing the advertising copy or message thereon shall not be considered an
erection or alteration which requires a sign permit unless a structural change is
made;
4. Nonilluminated promotional window sign as regulated by the zone
district in which it is located;
5. Garage/yard sale and estate sale signs, pursuant to the requirements
of Section 17.60.060(B);
6. Noncommercial signs, pursuant to the requirements of Section
17.60.070(C);
7. Flags for model homes as regulated in the residential districts;
8. Nameplate, as regulated;
9. Signs that are exempt as specified in Section 17.60.080;
Page - 34
10. Nonprofit special event signs subject to the provisions of Section
17.60.070(B)(5);
11. Pole banners, pennants/streamers in compliance with the provisions
of Sections 17.60.060(B)(4) and (5) .
C. Other Actions. Uses permitted under conditional use permits, wall and
landscape plans, zone changes, specific plans, and other such projects may
include signage as part of and in accordance with the permit or project. The
board of zoning adjustment, planning commission, or city council may approve,
deny, limit or grant modifications to such signage consistent with the provisions of
this chapter. If a comprehensive sign plan is required as a condition of approval
for such project, a separate application for said plan shall be required pursuant
to Section 17.60.030.
D. Exceptions. The building director may, in writing, grant exceptions to the
following sign regulations provided it has been determined that strict application
of the provisions of this chapter places an unnecessary hardship in satisfying the
purposes of this chapter:
1. Reduction of the minimum sign setbacks or minimum distance
between signs of not more than ten feet;
2. Signage on properties having no street frontage; provided, that any
such sign permitted shall not exceed the regulations as delineated by the zone
district in which they are located;
3. Additional on-site residential project identification signs, not to
exceed two additional per project, or an increase in sign area of one residential
identification project sign to sixty-four square feet;
4. An increase of a monument sign located within a commercial or
industrial zone district to sixty square feet in area and twelve feet in height,
provided the total number of monument signs per street frontage shall not
exceed two signs and no pylon sign exists along that street frontage or will be
permitted.
E. Modification of Regulations Not Permitted. Signs shall only be permitted
provided they meet the regulations of the zone district in which they are located
for that type of sign. With the exception of subsection D of this section or Section
17.60.030 regarding comprehensive sign plans, no waivers of, exceptions to, or
modification of any regulation of this chapter shall be permitted.
F. Fees. The city may impose fees to offset the costs associated with permit
administration and monitoring pursuant to Chapter 3.70.
Page - 35
SECTION 22.
Section 17.60.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.60.030 Comprehensive sign plans.
The comprehensive sign plan is a program that may allow developers or business
owners of a shopping/business center or other such project, to request special
consideration of signs that are specifically integrated into the overall architectural
style or theme for that project. Because signage can play an important role in the
overall site design in order to set it apart from other similar projects, a
comprehensive sign plan can create an effect both desired and unique that will
enhance the overall environment of the development. However, it is not the
intent of this section to be used to request relief of the sign regulations in order to
circumvent any requirements or purpose of this chapter.
A. General Requirements. Any person may file with the city a comprehensive
sign plan application for only the following projects:
1. Shopping/business center developments as defined in this title,
including office and industrial complexes. The application for the plan shall be
signed by more than fifty percent of the property owners, not including royalty
interests, of the real property constituting the center.
2. PCD (planned commercial development) projects.
3. Areas covered by a specific plan where signage was not identified
in said plan.
4. Public and semi-public institutional projects.
5. Neighborhood/subdivision identification sign program. This program
is limited to developments of one hundred acres or more that have frontage
along an arterial and/or collector street of one-half mile or more.
B. Condition of Project Approval. Comprehensive sign plans may be required
by the city council, or planning commission, or board of zoning adjustment as part
of any project approval as specified in Section 17.60.020(C).
C. Application Information. Any comprehensive sign plan application shall be
submitted to the planning department on a form provided by that department.
Information submitted shall include, but is not limited to, location, size, height,
color, lighting, number, visual effects, and orientation of all proposed and existing
signs as they pertain to the comprehensive sign plan.
Page - 36
D. Authority and Review. The planning commission shall have the authority
under the conditions provided in this chapter to permit the utilization of
comprehensive sign plans and may approve signs that are more or less restrictive
than the sign regulations set forth in this chapter.
1. All comprehensive sign plan requests shall be heard by the planning
commission at a public hearing. The applicant, their authorized agent, property
owners and operators of the businesses affected shall be notified by mail of the
time and place of the hearing before the planning commission at least ten days
before hearing.
2. Exceptions to the sign regulations in this chapter may be permitted,
provided the planning commission finds that the comprehensive sign plan as a
whole is in conformity with the purpose of this chapter and such exceptions are
for the general welfare resulting in an improved relationship among the various
signs, building facades, or overall project covered by the plan.
3. The planning commission may require special conditions on
approved plans such as, but not limited to, bonds or other type of security to
ensure the removal or abatement of signs that are abandoned or are in violation
of any condition of an approved plan, or a time schedule for any sign program
where signage is not considered permanent.
4. The planning commission shall either approve, conditionally approve
or disapprove the comprehensive sign plan at the public hearing. All decisions by
the planning commission are final and conclusive.
5. An approved comprehensive sign plan may be changed or
modified subject to the same process as a new application.
6. Where an application for a comprehensive sign plan has been
denied by the planning commission, no reapplication or new application for the
same or nearly the same such plan on the property shall be considered for a
period of one year from the date of the decision. However, where a change has
occurred which, in the discretion of the planning commission, indicates that the
new application is significantly different and that reconsideration would serve the
public interest, this time period may be waived provided the planning commission
makes such a finding.
7. The planning director may grant minor changes to an approved
comprehensive sign plan provided any such change does not alter the overall
architectural design or style of signs approved by such plan, and there is no
increase in the total area of signs.
E. Future Signs. A comprehensive sign plan may be approved where signs for
satellite pads or other such detached future buildings have not been identified
and considered under such approved plan. In these instances, unless otherwise
conditioned, such future signs shall be subject to the requirements of the C-1 zone
district.
Page - 37
F. Existing Signs as Part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan. If any new or amended
comprehensive sign plan is filed for property on which existing signs are located,
those signs shall be integrated into the plan and shall be in compliance with that
plan prior to issuance of a permit for any new sign permitted under said plan.
G. Permits Prohibited Until Decision Rendered. No permit shall be issued for any
sign on property where a comprehensive sign plan has been applied for and is
pending a decision from the planning commission.
H. Withdrawal of Plan. An approved comprehensive sign plan may be
withdrawn by the applicant provided: (1) it is not required as a condition of
project approval; (2) no signs have been installed pursuant to such plan; (3) all
signs installed since approval of said plan comply with the requirements of the
zone district in which they are located; or (4) all signs in the center or project
comply with the provisions of the zone district in which they are located. The
withdrawal shall be submitted in writing to the planning department.
I. Binding Effect. After approval of a comprehensive sign plan, no signs shall
be erected, placed, painted, installed, or otherwise permitted, except in
conformance with said plan. The plan shall be enforced in the same manner as
any other provision in this chapter. The comprehensive sign plan shall be attached
to the lease agreements or sale of space within the project and becomes binding
for the entire site for both existing and future owners/tenants. In case of any
conflict between the provisions of the plan and this chapter, the approved plan
shall control.
SECTION 23.
Section 17.62.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.62.050 Permit review procedure.
A. Application. A conditional use permit shall be required for all applications
for a surface mining operation or land reclamation project, including any
reclamation plan and financial assurance. The application for the permit shall be
filed with the planning director on forms provided by the director, and shall
include all information as necessary to meet city ordinances, CEQA, SMARA and
any other information that the director finds necessary to ensure that the project
can be adequately evaluated.
B. Authority. The board of zoning adjustment (BZA) planning commission shall
have the authority to grant or deny, subject to appeal to the city council, the
following:
1. A conditional use permit to conduct surface mining operation;
Page - 38
2. A reclamation plan;
3. Financial assurance for reclamation of mined lands;
4. Amendments to any term, condition or other consideration
regarding a surface mining operation, reclamation plan or financial assurance;
5. An interim management plan as defined in SMARA for idle surface
mining operations;
6. Environmental determinations concerning the conditional use permit
for surface mining operations;
7. Revocation of the conditional use permit.
C. Review Process. The procedures contained in Chapter 17.64 relating to
processing a conditional use permit, including but not limited to, notice, public
hearings, permit rights and restrictions, extensions and appeals shall apply to any
project regulated by this chapter.
D. Additional Notice. In addition to the notice required under the conditional
use procedure and CEQA, notice shall also be provided as follows:
1. Within thirty days of acceptance of an application as complete, the
Planning Director shall notify the State Department of Conservation of the filing of
the application.
2. If mining operations are proposed in the one hundred-year floodplain
of any watercourse as shown in Zone A of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and within one mile, upstream
or downstream, of any state highway bridge, the planning director shall notify the
State Department of Transportation that the application has been received.
3. The above notifications may be combined with any other notice or
consultation necessary to meet CEQA requirements.
E. Agency Consultation and Comments. In addition to the consultation and
comment period required by city ordinance and CEQA, the State Department of
Conservation shall be given thirty days to review and comment on a reclamation
plan and forty-five days to review and comment on a financial assurance (PRC
Section 2774(d)). The BZA planning commission shall consider all written
comments received, if any, from the State Department of Conservation and any
other person or agency during the comment period.
Page - 39
F. Required Findings. In addition to any findings required by Chapter 17.64 for
conditional use permits, an approval for a surface mining operation, reclamation
plan and financial assurance shall include findings that the project complies with
the provisions of SMARA and related state regulations.
G. Distribution of Final Decision. In addition to the final decision being
distributed to interested persons and/or agencies as may be required by city
ordinance and CEQA, a copy of each approved and/or amended conditional
use permit for a surface mining operation, reclamation plan and/or financial
assurance shall also be forwarded to the State Department of Conservation.
H. Amendments. Amendments to any approved surface mining operation,
reclamation plan and/or financial assurance, shall be processed in the same
manner as a new application.
SECTION 24.
Section 17.63.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.63.050 Appeal.
A. Should any applicant be dissatisfied with the decision of the planning
director not to grant a permit or for the revocation of a permit, then said applicant
or permit holder may, no later than ten days after notice of such decision is
deposited in the United States mail addressed to the applicant or permittee at
the address provided on the application, appeal the decision to the board of
zoning adjustment planning commission by filing such appeal with the planning
department.
B. The secretary to the board of zoning adjustment planning director shall set
the date for hearing the appeal at a regular meeting within a reasonable time
following filing of the appeal. Notice of the appeal shall be given in the same
manner as required in Section 17.64.050.
C. The board of zoning adjustment planning commission may sustain,
suspend, or overrule the decision of the planning director. Their decision shall be
final and conclusive.
D. Pending the hearing before the board of zoning adjustment planning
commission, the decision of the planning director shall remain in full force and
effect, and any reversal by the board of zoning adjustment planning commission
shall not be retroactive but shall take effect as of the date of the
boardcommission’s decision.
Page - 40
SECTION 25.
Section 17.66.180 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.66.180 Appeals.
A. A determination by staff of the provisions of this chapter may be appealed
to the planning commission. The action of staff shall be final unless, within ten days
of their decision, the applicant or any other person appeals in writing to the
planning commission by filing such appeal with the planning director and paying
appropriate fees.
B. A determination by the planning commission or board of zoning adjustment
pursuant to this chapter may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the
appeals procedures of Chapter 16.52 in the case of subdivision map approvals,
or Chapter 17.64, in the case of modifications director review and approval,
conditional use permits, or zone changes.
C. On appeal, the city council or planning commission may grant
modifications from the provisions of this chapter where the appellant clearly
demonstrates a practical difficulty in carrying out a specified provision. In granting
the modification, the city council or planning commission shall first find that the
strict application of a specified provision is impractical and that the modification
is in conformance with the intent of this chapter that the modification does not
lessen any fire protection or other public safety requirements and/or serves to
protect views as required by this chapter.
SECTION 26.
Section 17.68.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.68.040 Changes or expansion to legal nonconforming uses.
The board of zoning adjustment planning commission or city council may allow
changes or expansions to legal nonconforming uses as set forth in subsections A
through D of this section. They shall use the procedures adopted for conditional
use permits according to Chapter 17.64, except that they shall make findings set
forth in subsection E of this section.
A. A legal nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming
use of the same or more restrictive nature.
B. A structure occupied by a legal non-conforming use that has ceased or
been abandoned according to Section 17.68.030(C) may be permitted to be
Page - 41
used for the same or more restrictive use if the structure cannot be used for any
use consistent with the zone district in which it is located.
C. A legal nonconforming use may be enlarged, expanded, or extended
when such use is necessary due to economic market demands for the goods,
products, or services provided.
D. Time restrictions specified in Sections 17.68.020(A), 17.68.030(C), (H), or
17.68.060 may be extended.
E. The board of zoning adjustment planning commission or city council shall
make the following findings regarding changes or expansions to legal
nonconforming uses:
1. The proposed change or expansion of the legal nonconforming use
is essential and/or desirable to the public convenience or welfare.
2. The proposed change or expansion of the legal nonconforming use
is consistent with the intent and purpose of the ordinance that caused the use to
become nonconforming.
3. The change or expansion of the nonconforming use will have a
positive impact on the surrounding conforming uses and the area overall.
4. Other property where the use would be conforming is unavailable,
either physically or economically.
5. No other appropriate remedies are available to bring the use into
conformance, including amending the zone district boundary and/or zoning
ordinance text.
SECTION 27.
Section 17.71.040 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
17.71.040 Additional standards for specific uses.
In addition to the general standards contained in Section 17.71.030, the following
shall apply to the specific use identified below:
A. Parking Lots and Garages.
1. Lighting shall be in accordance with the provisions in Section
17.58.060(B).
Page - 42
B. Outdoor Performance, Sports, and Recreation Facilities.
1. Where playing fields or other special activity areas are to be
illuminated, lighting fixtures shall be mounted, aimed, and shielded so that their
beams fall within the primary playing area and immediate surroundings within the
project site. Illumination should be no greater than the minimum recommended
levels established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
for the type of activity. Illumination should also meet, without exceeding, the
IESNA recommendations for the IESNA defined illumination class appropriate for
the predominant use of the facility.
2. The main lighting shall be turned off within one hour or as soon as
possible following the end of an event. Where feasible, a low level lighting system
may be used immediately following events to facilitate patrons leaving the
facility, cleanup, maintenance, and other closing activities.
3. Because lighted fields and other lighted outdoor facilities may also
be subject to discretionary approval, operational regulations, and the standards
in this chapter may be further restricted, modified or otherwise conditioned by the
board of zoning adjustment planning director, planning commission, or city
council.
This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after the date of its passage.
---------o0o----------
Page - 43
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted,
by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
_____________________________ by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: RIVERA, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, FREEMAN, SULLIVAN, PARLIER
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ _
______________________________________
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By: ______________________________
KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ___________________________
JOSHUA RUDNICK
Deputy City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 2020
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bruce Freeman, Chair
Bob Smith
Willie Rivera
FROM: Steve Esselman, Principal Planner
THRU: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: General Plan Progress Report
This report is intended to provide information on the current status of progress toward updating the General Plan.
A presentation by Rincon Consultants will accompany the report at the Planning and Development Committee
meeting. Status reports have been provided to this Committee periodically, most recently on May 21, 2019 (see
Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND – EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65300, the City and the County of Kern jointly adopted
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and certified the associated programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) in 2002 to plan for the long-term future development of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.
The 2002 MBGP included an update to the text of the previous 1990 General Plan and made minor revisions to
the land-use map designations that had originally been prepared in the late 1980's. Staff prepared text changes
“in-house” and a Consultant assisted in preparation of the EIR.
The MBGP contains seven elements as required by state law, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing,
Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Two additional elements reflect the specific needs and objectives
of the area, including a Public Services and Facilities Element and Parks Element. The MBGP also includes a
reservation for the “Kern River Plan Element,” which was jointly adopted by the City and County in 1985. The
MBGP can be found on the City’s website (www.bakersfieldcity.us/ds).
In the 17 years since adoption of the MBGP, various updates have occurred to maintain compliance with State law
(see Table 1). However, there have been two considerable changes to the local landscape:
1. The County of Kern has moved forward with its own General Plan update, and will no longer maintain a “joint”
Plan with the City of Bakersfield. Though the County and City will now have independent plans, the physical
and political geography of the area remain highly integrated. This will necessitate continued coordination in
the future, which must be articulated in the current update process.
2. Changes continue in State law, local ordinances, growth patterns, and the needs of the community.
These factors warrant preparation of an updated “Bakersfield General Plan” (BGP) to direct growth for the next
20 - 30 years; and an accompanying environmental analysis that identifies the specific impacts of the new growth
and appropriate methods to address and mitigate those impacts.
Table 1. Recent Updates to the General Plan
Element Update Description
Land Use Quarterly Property Owner Requests; per SB 244, SB 1241, AB 162, GC 65302, etc.
Circulation 2018 Clean-up to reflect constructed Freeways and Infrastructure
Housing 2015 2015-2023 Housing Element approved per State Law
Conservation 2015 As required by SB 244, SB 1241, AB 162, GC 65302, etc.
Open Space 2002 Past updates
Safety 2015 As required by SB 244, SB 1241, AB 162, GC 65302, etc.
Noise 2006 Past updates
BACKGROUND – UPDATING THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
There are many methods and ways that the 2002 General Plan can be updated, and each has varying degrees of
complexity and costs. Attachment 2 of this Memorandum includes a Whitepaper analysis that lays out additional
details and history of the existing General Plan and the process toward updating.
It is important to engage the City Council and our local community on the best steps to approach the update to
the General Plan. Therefore, on October 16, 2019, the Planning Division released a Request for Proposals (RFP)
for the preparation of a comprehensive analysis and recommendations for options in pursuing an update to the
City’s General Plan. The RFP (Attachment 3) closed on November 15, 2019 and the City Council approved a
contract with Rincon Consultant Inc. for $49,764.00 at its January 22, 2020 meeting.
The purpose of the preparation of a “General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report” is to review the City’s
2002 General Plan, focusing on its content, clarity and intended purpose, assess the completeness and ease of use
associated with the City’s General Plan, and where appropriate, recommend additional provisions or other
improvements. The goal of Rincon’s analysis is to gain a clear understanding of the issues and expectations and
create a reasonable range of options for a general plan update process. The report identifies three distinct options
the City can take to ensure that the updated General Plan will effectively and efficiently provide a roadmap to
guide future development while achieving the City’s vision and goals.
The report presents findings which focus upon three scaled options for the general plan update:
1. A Focused Update. Update all legally required elements but no parcel-specific land use designation updates;
2. A Policy Update. Focused Update option plus specific, locally important policy driven updates within some or
all the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan elements and limited parcel-specific existing land use
designation updates; and
3. A Comprehensive Update Overhauls all sections and technical information, incorporates all new State
planning laws and guidance regarding General Plan updates, executes a large-scale public engagement
program, and updates all parcel-specific land use designations.
The summary report analyzes each of the approaches and includes the consultant’s findings and
recommendations as to the most suitable approach.
NEXT STEPS
In order to ensure full consideration and multiple opportunities for public engagement in this preliminary stage
of the update process, the General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report will be presented during several
public meetings for review and comment as follows:
6/30/2020 - Planning & Development Committee. The consultant will provide a brief presentation of the
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report as an accompaniment to this report at the Planning and
Development Committee.
7/13/2020 - Planning Commission. The report will be presented to the Planning Commission.
8/12/2020 - City Council (tentative): The Council will be presented with the Report, any public comments
received, and the comments and recommendations of the Planning & Development Committee and the
Planning Commission. The full City Council will then have the option of providing direction to staff on a specific
option to move forward with, or engage in further discussion.
Fall/Winter 2020 - Begin General Plan Update. Staff will begin preparations of an RFP for a full proposal to
update the City’s General Plan, in compliance with the option selected by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning and Development Committee – May 21, 2019
2. General Plan Update Whitepaper
3. RFP for General Plan Update Strategy and Options
4. Final Draft General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
B A K E R S F I E L D
Development Services Department
Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Development Services Director
City of Bakersfield ● 1715 Chester Avenue ● Bakersfield, California ● 93301
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 2019
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Bruce Freeman, Chair
Chris Parlier
Bob Smith
FROM: JACQUELYN R. KITCHEN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: General Plan Update Strategy & Options Request for Proposal
This item is an update on an ongoing topic before the Planning and Development Committee.
Background
On May 10, 2019, the Development Services Department sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified
consultants to prepare a General Plan Update Strategy & Options document. The document is to provide a
comprehensive analysis and recommendations for: 1) at least three (3) options to approach the upcoming update
to the City’s General Plan and 2) anticipated schedule and cost for each option.
Update Options (to be included in proposal):
1. Focused Update. All legally required updates to specific Elements within the MBGP and addition of any
newly mandated Elements; No parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations.
2. Policy Update. “Focused” option content plus specific, locally important policy driven updates within
some or all Elements of the MBGP; Limited parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations.
3. “Other” Update. Optional third option, parameters to be designed by responder incorporating all new
State laws and guidance regarding General Plan updates.
Project Objectives (to be evaluated within each Option):
a. Within each Element, identify the various options and methodology for existing goals, policies, and
implementation measures to be revised and the type of goals, policies and implementation that should
be added or removed; these policies should be coordinated with the mitigation in the MBGP EIR, to
facilitate future streamlining via CEQA Section 15183.
b. Identify new Elements that could be added and general framework for possible content;
c. Identify specific areas/Elements that will require continued coordination with Kern County;
City of Bakersfield ● 1715 Chester Avenue ● Bakersfield, California ● 93301
d. Define the strategy for updating the existing land use map designations throughout the General Plan area
(not applicable for Focused Option);
e. Identify options for the future General Plan boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI)
f. Identify other possible General Plan implementation tools and methodology.
The deadline for proposal submittal in response to the RFP is before 5:00 pm on July 12, 2019. The following table
provides a rough schedule of document development once the chosen consultant is under contract:
Milestone Month
Kick-off meeting 0
One mid-project status report and meeting with
City staff
3
Draft GPU Strategy document submittal 6
Planning & Development Committee meeting
attendance (2)
7
Final GPU Strategy Document submittal 8
CC meeting attendance (2) 9
Final document presentation to PC and/or CC (1) 9
Action & Staff Recommendation:
No action necessary; this is informational only.
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.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
General Plan Update
Strategy & Options
Request for Comprehensive Analysis and Recommendations for
the new
“Bakersfield General Plan”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Kevin F. Coyle, AICP CEP; Planning Director
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue | Bakersfield, CA 93301
POSTED: October 16, 2019
DUE: November 15, 2019
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
1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PREPARE
“GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STRATEGY & OPTIONS”
The City of Bakersfield is seeking a qualified professional Consultant to prepare a “General Plan Update
Strategy and Options” document to include a comprehensive analysis and provide recommendations for: 1)
at least three (3) options to approach the upcoming update to the City’s General Plan and 2) anticipated
schedule and cost for each option. A list of Consultants who have received this RFP is attached.
INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS RFP: Do not contact any City personnel other than the contact person indicated
below. If needed, please send a single email inquiry if there are multiple questions concerning the scope of
professional services required.
Email: DevServices@bakersfieldcity.us | Phone: (661) 326-3733
(Reference “General Plan Update Strategy - RFP Response”)
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS RFP: In order to respond to this RFP, please submit four hard copies and one
digital copy (on appropriate media device) of the proposal to the following address:
Development Service Department – Planning Division
Attn: Kevin F. Coyle, AICP CEP; Planning Director
1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
All envelopes/shipping boxes are to be clearly marked as follows:
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STRATEGY & OPTIONS
DUE DATE: This proposal is subject to a 30-day response period. Consideration has been included for mail
delivery and holidays in calculating the response date. Proposers are solely responsible for ensuring timely
receipt of proposals and responses received after the due date will not be considered. Postmark date will not
constitute timely delivery.
The proposal must arrive at the address noted above before 5:00 pm on the closing date listed below. The
RFP timeline for Consultant selection is as follows:
Distribution of RFP ................................................................................................. 10/16/19
DUE DATE for Response to RFP ...................................................................... 11/15/19
Notification of Short List Selection (Tentative) ..................................................... 12/15/19
Interviews, if needed (Tentative) .......................................................................... 12/15/19
Notification of Final Selection (Tentative) .............................................................. 1/16/20
Sincerely,
Kevin F. Coyle, AICP CEP
Planning Director
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSAL .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 CURRENT CONDITIONS/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4
2.0 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT ......................................................................................... 6
2.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND SUBMISSION .................................................................................... 9
3.1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.0 MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................... 13
4.1 PAYMENT FOR SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY ........................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 SOLICITATION CAVEAT ......................................................................................................................................... 13
4.4 TIME ................................................................................................................................................................ 13
4.5 FORM OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT (OVER $40K) ........................................................................... 13
4.6 BUSINESS ADDRESS ............................................................................................................................................. 14
4.7 ADDENDA ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.9 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 14
5.0 SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................................................... 15
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this Proposal
The City of Bakersfield (City) is requesting proposals from qualified consulting firms with specific
experience in preparing comprehensive updates to the General Plan. The selected Consultant will work
with the City to provide analysis and recommendations for: 1) at least three options to approach the
upcoming update to the City’s General Plan and 2) anticipated schedule and cost for each option (see
Section 2.3). Proposals should include all information requested in this RFP, and should demonstrate
experience with General Plan Updates.
1.2 Background
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65300, the City and the County of Kern jointly
adopted the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and certified the associated programmatic
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 2002 to plan for the long-term future development of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The 2002 MBGP included an update to the text of the previous 1990
General Plan and made minor revisions to the land-use map designations that had originally been
prepared in the late 1980's. Staff prepared text changes “in-house” and a Consultant assisted in
preparation of the EIR.
The MBGP contains seven elements as required by state law, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing,
Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Two additional elements reflect the specific needs and
objectives of the area, including a Public Services and Facilities Element and Parks Element. The MBGP
also includes a reservation for the “Kern River Plan Element,” which was jointly adopted by the City and
County in 1985. The MBGP can be found on the City’s website (www.bakersfieldcity.us/ds).
In the 17 years since adoption of the MBGP, various updates have occurred to maintain compliance with
State law (see Table 1). However, there have been two considerable changes to the local landscape:
1. The County of Kern has moved forward with a General Plan update, and will no longer maintain a
“joint” Plan with the City of Bakersfield. Though the County and City will now have independent plans,
the physical and political geography of the area remain highly integrated. This will necessitate
continued coordination in the future, which must be articulated in the current update process.
2. Changes continue in State law, local ordinances, growth patterns, and the needs of the community.
These factors warrant preparation of: (1) a new “Bakersfield General Plan” (BGP) to direct growth for the
next 20 - 30 years; and (2) a new comprehensive environmental analysis that identifies the specific impacts
of the new growth and appropriate methods to address and mitigate those impacts. Table 1 lists the
current status of the various Elements.
Table 1. Recent Updates to the General Plan
Element Update Description
Land Use Quarterly Property Owner Requests; per SB 244, SB 1241, AB 162, GC 65302, etc.
Circulation 2018 Clean-up to reflect constructed Freeways and Infrastructure
Housing 12/9/15 2015-2023 Housing Element approved per State Law
Conservation 2015 As required by SB 244, SB 1241, AB 162, GC 65302, etc.
Open Space 2002 Past updates
Safety 2015 As required by SB 244, SB 1241, AB 162, GC 65302, etc.
Noise 2006 Past updates
4
1.3 Project Location
The current MBGP area is approximately 408 square miles. A map of the MBGP boundary can be found at
the City’s website (www.bakersfieldcity.us). In accordance with state planning law, a General Plan must
cover all territory within the boundaries of the adopting city. The plan should also take into account any
area outside which, in the planning agency's judgment, "bears relation to its planning" (Government Code
Section 65300). It also allows adoption of area plans or general plans in part. Thereby, the City is able to
designate the area covered by this General Plan Update for study and adoption.
1.4 Project Description and Objectives
This Project is the preparation of an analysis of options for the City’s approach to the General Plan Update.
The response shall include a strategy for each of the noted “Update Options” noted below and information
to demonstrate how the Project Objectives will be met by each option.
Update Options (to be included in Response):
A. Focused Update. All legally-required updates to specific Elements within the MBGP and addition
of any newly mandated Elements; No parcel-specific updates to existing land use designations.
B. Policy Update. “Focused” option content plus specific, locally important policy driven updates
within some or all Elements of the MBGP; Limited parcel-specific updates to existing land use
designations.
C. “Other” Update. Optional third option, parameters to be designed by responder incorporating
all new State laws and guidance regarding General Plan updates.
Project Objectives (to be evaluated within each Option):
1) Within each Element, identify the various options and methodology for existing goals, policies,
and implementation measures to be revised and the type of goals, policies and implementation
that should be added or removed; these policies should be coordinated with the mitigation in the
MBGP EIR, to facilitate future streamlining via CEQA Section 15183.
2) Identify new Elements that could be added and general framework for possible content;
3) Identify specific areas/Elements that will require continued coordination with Kern County;
4) Define the strategy for updating the existing land use map designations throughout the General
Plan area (not applicable for Focused Option);
5) Identify options for the future General Plan boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI)
6) Identify other possible General Plan implementation tools and methodology.
1.5 Current Conditions/Land Use Designations
The majority of the MBGP area outside the jurisdiction of the City is designated for agricultural uses, of
which about 2% percent is in the City. Residential uses are a close second with 29% of the total MBGP
area, of which 61% is in the City. The following table includes a breakdown of land uses in the City and
unincorporated areas.
5
Metropolitan Bakersfield Land Uses
LAND USE JURISDICTION SQ MILES LAND USE JURISDICTION SQ MILES
RESIDENTIAL 118.6 INDUSTRIAL 23.6
RR CITY 0.4 HI CITY 0.9
UER CITY 0.1 LI CITY 3.5
ER CITY 0.9 SI CITY 4.4
SR CITY 4.9 Sub-total City 8.8
LR CITY 47.9 HI COUNTY 3.9
WM-LR CITY 0.7 LI COUNTY 1.7
LR/PS CITY 0.0 SI COUNTY 9.3
LMR/LR CITY 0.0 Sub-total County 14.8
LMR CITY 7.5 OPEN SPACE 26.4
WM-LMR CITY 1.3 OS CITY 8.6
HMR CITY 5.6 OS-P CITY 3.0
WM-HMR CITY 0.7 OS-S CITY 5.6
HR CITY 2.0 Sub-total City 17.2
WM-HR CITY 0.1 OS COUNTY 4.9
Sub-total City 72.2 OS-P COUNTY 2.7
RR COUNTY 12.7 OS-S COUNTY 1.6
UER COUNTY 2.7 Sub-total County 9.2
ER COUNTY 5.3 PUBLIC FACILITIES 20.4
SR COUNTY 9.7 P CITY 12.1
SR/LR COUNTY 1.3 P-SW CITY 0.3
LR COUNTY 1.3 PS CITY 2.8
LMR/LR COUNTY 3.8 PT CITY 0.5
LMR COUNTY 5.8 WM-SU CITY 0.3
HMR COUNTY 3.3 Sub-total City 16.1
HR COUNTY 0.5 P COUNTY 1.4
Sub-total County 46.4 P-SW COUNTY 0.2
COMMERCIAL 13.7 PS COUNTY 1.0
GC CITY 7.3 PT COUNTY 1.8
WM-GC CITY 0.0 Sub-total County 4.3
HC CITY 0.3 AGRICULTURE 127.7
OC CITY 1.3 R-EA CITY 0.2
MC CITY 0.6 R-IA CITY 2.4
MUC CITY 1.3 R-EA COUNTY 22.2
WM-MU CITY 0.1 R-IA COUNTY 103.0
WM-OC CITY 0.1 MINERALS & PETROLEUM 35.9
Sub-total City 10.9 R-MP CITY 0.6
GC COUNTY 2.2 R-MP COUNTY 35.3
HC COUNTY 0.5 OTHER 41.7
OC COUNTY 0.0 OTHER JURIS FEDERAL LAND 1.0
MC COUNTY 0.1 OTHER JURIS CITY OF SHAFTER 5.4
Sub-total County 2.7 RIGHT OF WAY CITY/COUNTY 35.2
6
2.0 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT
2.1 General Plan Update Strategy
Responses to this RFP are to include a scope of work to prepare a General Plan Update Strategy document
that contains analysis and recommendations in accordance with the Update Options and Project
Objectives noted in Section 1.4.
2.2 Project Components
2.2.1 General Plan Update Options
This section of the proposal should include a strategy/discussion for each of the noted “Update Options”
and shall consider the information noted below. The City acknowledges that some or all of these topics
may have a common method to address throughout all Update Options, and these commonalities may be
reflected in the proposal without duplication.
1. List relevant new local, state, and federal laws, and how they will be incorporated. Possibilities include
but are not limited to:
a. Air Quality. (Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375) The 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
requires reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and establishes the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Scoping Plan to achieve this goal via cap and 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 743 and AB 1358). AB 743 requires transition from Level of
Service (LOS) to VMT for transportation impacts. OPR has provided a technical advisory in 2018
for guidance on implementation and strategies for analysis. Requires Circulation Element to plan
for multi-modal transportation networks that allow travel by motor vehicle, foot, bicycle, and
transit. OPR updated General Plan guidelines in 2010 to provide guidance to cities.
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 as well as 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 Public Resources Code Section 4102.
e. Flood Control (AB 162). Requires Conservation and Safety Elements to add information
concerning flood/fire hazards, storm-water management, and groundwater 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).
2. 2018 OPR General Plan Guidelines and relation to each Element. Examples:
a. Land Use
1. Analysis of residential density goals/limits and balance with infill and urban growth
2. Revisions in the number of residential and/or commercial designations
3. Analysis of land amount needed for each land use type to accommodate future growth.
4. Analysis of future water banking projects in the upland areas outside the floodplain
7
b. Circulation
1. Analysis of Complete Streets and Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program (RTIF)
2. Consideration of Bike/Trail Plan and pedestrian and multimodal transportation options and
consolidating existing specific bike and trail plans into Element
3. Consideration of High Speed Rail and other regional/statewide transportation facilities
c. Public Services and Facilities
1. Analysis of water services, including all water districts that serve the Metro area
2. Consideration of Groundwater Sustainability Act and on-going efforts related to the Kern
River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
3. Analysis of sewer service, including sewer districts and County Service Areas
4. Analysis of solid waste, including private franchise vendors
d. Safety Services
1. Analysis of adequacy of police and fire services (a fire Joint Powers Agreement exists between
the City and County)
2. Analysis of seismic fault hazards (generally in northeast Bakersfield area)
3. Analysis of flooding (most of the City is within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area)
e. Conservation
1. Analysis of biological resources (existing Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
and new Habitat Conservation Plan in development)
2. Analysis of soils and agriculture resources
3. Analysis of water resources, including ongoing GSA/GSP efforts
f. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change Action Plan
1. Recent legislation (See Section 2.3.1, Item 1)
2. Renewable energy and energy efficiency; use of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, etc.
3. Analysis of Climate Action Plan requirements
g. Urban and Jurisdiction Growth Issues
1. Effect of County islands/developments surrounding City
2. How General Plan can facilitate future annexations, including County Islands
3. Analysis of methods to encourage dense/denser urban growth
h. Housing Element: Consistency with housing goals and programs and incorporating State housing
goals and priorities
i. Open Space: Analysis of adequacy and availability of open space and park uses in the City.
1. Explore option of designating Hwy 178 as a Caltrans Scenic Corridor (this has been identified
as a possibility by Caltrans).
2. Consolidating all specific park plans into Element
j. Possible New Elements:
1. Economic Development Element. Identify methods to facilitate and support economic growth
and how land uses can be coordinated to achieve economic development goals.
2. Downtown Bakersfield Element. Build upon the completed High Speed Rail Station Area Plan;
to include architectural standards and polices to revitalize Downtown Bakersfield. Explore
options for historic preservation and revitalization, including incentives such as the Mills Act.
Other Elements that align with City Council goals.
8
3. Other concepts to consider:
a. Incorporate State planning priorities per Government Code Section 65041.1
b. Incorporate on-going Regional Planning Goals, such as Blueprints (both Kern and the San Joaquin
Valley) and Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
c. Equitable Opportunities, Environmental Justice, and Fair Housing, including HUD’s Final Rule on
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH)
d. Healthy Communities
e. Sustainability
f. Fiscal Stability/Responsibility
g. Diversity/Inclusivity
h. Revisions of inconsistencies, ineffective goals and policies, and gaps
i. Refine existing goals that no longer serve the community, lack clarity, or are no longer current
j. Removal of completed implementation measures
2.3.2 Anticipated Schedule and Cost for Each Option
For each Update Option, the General Plan Update Strategy document will provide an anticipated schedule
and cost to implement the option. This schedule and cost shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
development of the background reports, completion of a comprehensive public outreach program,
development of the General Plan document and supporting mapping amendments (if applicable),
programmatic EIR preparation, and Zoning Ordinance updates to be consistent with the anticipated
General Plan Update changes. The Consultant’s proposed timelines shall span the initial kick-off meeting
of the General Plan Update to final City Council adoption.
2.4 Project Timeline, Milestones, and Deliverables
Upon contract execution, the goal is to present the final “General Plan Update Strategy & Options”
document, based on the Project description and noted services, for City review and consideration within
six to nine months.
As part of the proposal, the Consultant shall include the following Project milestones.
Table 2. Project Deliverables & Milestones
No. Description
1 Kick-off meeting and Milestones for Completion
2 One mid-Project status report and meeting with City staff;
3 Draft General Plan Update Strategy document submittal
4 Planning and Development Committee meeting attendance (2)
5 Final General Plan Update Strategy Document submittal
6 City Council meeting attendance (2)
7 Final document presentation to Planning Commission and/or City Council (1)
9
3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT, CONTENTS, AND SUBMISSION
3.1 Proposal Contents
All proposals submitted for this Project will be submitted as one digital and four hardcopies to be
organized, tabbed, and presented in the order listed below. The proposals will not be judged by the
volume of material presented and therefore, should be as brief and concise as possible without sacrificing
clarity. The proposal should not exceed 20 pages in length exclusive of appendix materials (e.g., resumes).
3.1.1 Cover Page
Indicate the name of firm and Project title.
3.1.2 Professional Team & Qualifications
Provide brief information concerning your firm in this section. Discuss the overall capabilities of the
organization(s). Include a brief description of the firm's history, experience, organizational structure, and
resumes of top-level management. Provide similar information for each joint venture participant and all
subcontractors, if any, along with the approximate percentage of their contribution.
If two or more firms are involved in a joint venture or association for this Project, the proposal must clearly
delineate the respective areas of authority and responsibility of each party. All parties signing the
agreement with the City must be individually liable for completion of the entire Project, even when the
area of authority and responsibility under the terms of the joint venture or association is limited.
Include the following information in this section:
1. Name and location of the office where Project work is to be performed.
2. Total personnel by discipline of the professional team (including sub-Consultants)
3. An Organizational Chart to include:
a. Principal-in-Charge – State nature of involvement with the Project
b. Project Manager – State nature of involvement with the Project
c. Planners/Environmentalists
d. Other key personnel
3.1.3 Project Approach and Work Schedule
Present your response to the services requested above. The proposal shall include a description of the
methodology developed to perform the required services and tasks, including the listing of products
associated with each. Provide a work schedule outlining timeframes for circulation of the Project, work
products, and milestones.
The Consultant shall be prepared to start the work within three weeks of the City’s authorization to
proceed and shall complete work within the allotted time specified by the Professional Services
Agreement.
The Project duration may be approximately six to nine months. The actual program time may vary and
will depend on issues and circumstances, which evolve from public meetings, future funding, and future
10
events. The proposal should demonstrate the Consultant’s willingness to prepare and execute flexible
work scheduling based on these unknown events. The proposal must allow adequate time for Staff review,
comment, and redraft of the documents, discussion, and deliberation throughout the Project.
3.1.4 Cost of Services
Submit two exhibits; including 1) a fee schedule showing the hourly rates for staff and any other direct
material and equipment costs that are likely to occur and 2) a payment schedule.
The proposed budget should outline all estimated costs to complete the Project as outlined in Section 2
of this RFP, including administrative costs, graphics, duplication, and mailings as well as travel costs. Please
note that City of Bakersfield does not pay “Cost-Plus” expenses. Therefore, integrate all anticipated costs
to complete the Project into the total proposed budget. The cost will be on a time-and-materials, not-to-
exceed basis and payment will be monthly (i.e., net 30).
3.1.5 Insurance and Indemnification
The selected Consultant will be required to obtain and maintain insurance as a condition of the award of
this agreement, and the Consultant’s proposal shall state that the Consultant shall obtain the following in
accordance with the terms of the agreement:
1. Professional liability insurance, providing coverage on an occurrence basis for errors and omissions
with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence;
2. Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage on an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including
death, of one or more persons, property damage and personal injury, with limits of not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence;
3. Broad form commercial general liability insurance, providing coverage on an occurrence basis for
bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage and personal injury, with
limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and
4. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employer's liability insurance with limits
of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident.
Except for professional liability, the liability policies shall contain an additional insured endorsement in
favor of the City, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
The workers' compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of the City,
its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. This requirement may be
waived at the City's sole discretion.
Except for professional liability, all policies required of the Consultant hereunder shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers and any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
The automobile liability policies shall provide coverage for owned, non-owned and hired autos. The
liability policies shall provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this Agreement.
11
All policies shall contain an endorsement providing the City with 30 days' written notice of cancellation or
material change in policy language or terms. All policies shall provide that there shall be continuing liability
thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any policy.
The insurance required under this Agreement shall be maintained until all work required to be performed
under the terms of this Agreement is completed to the City's satisfaction. The Consultant shall furnish the
City Risk Manager with a certificate of insurance and, if requested, copies of endorsement or all insurance
policies evidencing the insurance required under this Agreement.
Any deductibles, self-insured retentions or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of certain types of
insurance otherwise required by this agreement of Consultant, must be declared to and approved by the
City.
However, unless otherwise approved by the City, if any part of the work under this Agreement is
subcontracted, the "basic insurance requirements" set forth hereinabove shall be provided by or on behalf
of all subcontractors even if the City has approved lesser insurance requirements for Consultant.
Consultant shall be responsible for determining and guaranteeing all subcontractors are insured as set
forth in this paragraph.
All costs of insurance required under this Agreement shall be included in the Consultant's bid, and no
additional allowance will be made for additional costs, which may be required by extension of the
insurance policies. If Consultant fails to maintain adequate insurance coverage as required by the design
contract, then the City of Bakersfield shall have the right to terminate the Consultant's contract.
The selected Consultant will also be required to execute the Professional Services Agreement that includes
the following indemnification language:
Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City’s officers, agents and employees
against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any
of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with,
or caused by Consultant or Consultant’s employees, agents, independent contractors, companies, or
subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this
Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for City’s sole active
negligence or willful misconduct.
3.1.6 Current Volume of Work
Provide a means to demonstrate that your firm has the capacity to provide the required services in a
timely manner and to meet the deadlines.
3.1.7 Conflict of Interest
The contractor retained under agreement to perform the aforementioned services will refrain from
contracting with the applicant (unless the applicant is the City of Bakersfield) during the duration of the
time that the scope of Consultant services is performed on behalf of the City. In addition, the Consultant
retained under agreement to perform the aforementioned services will not contract for services on any
Project within the incorporated City of Bakersfield without first receiving written consent from the
Planning Director that the requested contract for services is not inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict
with, or contrary to the performance of the Project, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld.
12
3.2 Proposal Submission
To receive consideration, proposals shall be made utilizing the following general instructions:
1. The signatures of all persons signing the proposal shall be in longhand. The completed proposal should
be without interlineations, alterations, or erasures.
2. No oral, telegraphic, or telephonic proposals will be considered.
3. The submission of a proposal shall be conclusive evidence that the Consultant has investigated and is
satisfied with the conditions affecting the program, the character, quality, and scope of work to be
performed, and the requirements of the City, and, with that understanding, is qualified and able to
complete the Project as outlined herein.
4. Proposals shall be enclosed in and envelopes/shipping box that is clearly marked as specified in the
coversheet of this RFP.
5. All documents submitted by the Consultant are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Submit four hard copies and one digital copy of your proposal to:
Development Service Department – Planning Division
Attn: Kevin F. Coyle, AICP CEP; Planning Director
1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
ALL PROPOSALS MUST BE SEALED AND RECEIVED BY 5 P.M. ON THE DEADLINE DATE AT THE ABOVE
OFFICE AND ADDRESS. PROPOSALS SUBMITTED AFTER THE ABOVE DEADLINE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
13
4.0 MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Payment for Services
Payment, which requires the preparation of studies and/or any other City requested work, shall be subject
to approval by City Staff and will not be paid prior to the completion of any requested revisions.
4.2 Services Provided by the City
The City will provide a Project Manager and Staff assistance by appropriate City personnel and the items
listed below in support of the Consultant’s professional services; however, the Consultant shall be
responsible for the evaluation of all information supplied by the City.
4.2.1 City Documents
Upon agreement between the City and Consultant on the scope of the information required, the City will
furnish Consultant with available data, plans, reports, maps, and other materials and information required
for the Project, except those included in the Consultant’s scope of services.
4.3 Solicitation Caveat
The proposer understands and agrees that the City shall have no financial responsibility for any costs
incurred by the proposer in responding to this RFP and shall not be liable to any proposer for costs
attributed to the design of the Project until the proposer has executed a contract with the City and been
authorized in writing to proceed. The City reserves the right to terminate this RFP after three-day notice
to all prospective proposers. The City may select any proposal in its sole discretion and on the basis of
criteria which the City determines best reflects its interest in completion of the Project. The City may (a)
select any proposal for further clarification or negotiation; (b) alter the RFP or ask for alternative
proposals; (c) suspend or alter the timing of negotiations and/or solicitations and/or negotiations and/or
execution of agreements under this RFP or in respect of any proposal; or (d) suspend or terminate, in
whole or in part, any aspect of the Project or this RFP. In any such event and to the maximum extent
permitted by law, a proposer’s sole remedy will be the right to withdraw such proposal, and all other
rights and remedies of any proposer submitting a proposal will be deemed waived and released as against
the City.
The submission of a proposal shall be conclusive evidence that the Consultant had investigated and
satisfied themselves as to the conditions to be encountered, the character, quality, and scope of work to
be performed, and the requirements of the City of Bakersfield, and, with that understanding, is qualified
and able to complete the Project as outlined herein.
4.4 Time
Time is of the essence as to all work to be performed by the selected Consultant.
4.5 Form of Independent Contractor’s Agreement (Over $40K)
Attached is substantially the form of the Independent Contractor’s Agreement (Over $40K), which the
successful firm is expected agree to and sign. Prospective Consultants shall be notified of major changes
to this RFP or the proposed Independent Contractor’s Agreement (Over $40K) by addenda.
14
4.6 Business Address
Proposers shall furnish the City with their business street address. Any communications directed either to
the address so given or to the address listed on the sealed proposal container and deposited in the U.S.
Postal Service by certified mail shall constitute a legal service thereof upon the proposer.
4.7 Addenda
Addenda issued by the City interpreting or changing any of the items in this RFP, including all modifications
thereof, shall be incorporated in the proposal. The proposer shall sign and date the Addenda Cover Sheet
and submit them with their proposal (or deliver them to the Planning Division) if the Consultant has
previously submitted this proposal to the Planning Division.
4.9 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Participation
The Consultant shall ensure that DBE firms, as defined by federal law, have the maximum opportunity to
participate in the performance of this contract and shall take all necessary and reasonable steps for such
assurance. The Consultant shall document that adequate Good Faith Efforts were conducted to meet the
requirements of the DBE. If a ranked Consultant does not meet the goal and the City determines that the
Good Faith Effort was not adequate, the Consultant will be rejected and the City will negotiate with the
next highest ranked firm.
15
5.0 SELECTION PROCESS
All proposals received by the specified deadline will be reviewed by the City for content, fee schedule,
staffing, the proposed work program, and the phasing of tasks as well as overall compliance with this RFP.
In reviewing the details for the Update Options, the City will consider level of effort, timing, and cost.
Informal interviews may be conducted as part of the final selection process. The firm or firms selected by
the City will be recommended to the City Council, but the Council is not bound to accept the
recommendation or award the work to the recommended firm.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive informalities and minor
irregularities in any proposal received and may reject, modify, or otherwise alter this proposal process as
it sees fit, at its sole discretion, with or without cause. The City reserves the right to select the proposal or
proposals which, in its sole judgment, best meet the needs of the City. Pursuant to Section 4526 of the
Government Code, the selection will be based on demonstrated competence and on the professional
qualifications of the applicants and at a fair and reasonable price to the City.
Consultant’s List
City of Bakersfield Planning Division
Consultant List - Mailing Labels -
Updated: 10/16/19
Drake Haglan and Associates
Attn: RFP Manager
11060 White Rock Rd., Ste. 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
PH: 916-363-4210
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
3230 El Camino Real, Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92602
PH: 714-730-2300
AECOM
Attn: RFP Manager
1220 Avenida Acaso
Camarillo, CA 93012
PH: 805-388-3775
Dudek
Attn: RFP Manager
38 N. Marengo Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
PH: 626-204-9800
ICF International
Attn: RFP Manager
49 Discovery, Ste. 250
Irvine, CA 92618
PH: 949-333-6625
Alta Environmental
Attn: RFP Manager
3777 Long Beach Blvd., Annex Bldg.
Long Beach, CA 90807
PH: 888-608-3010
Ecology and Environment Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
505 Sansome St., Ste. 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
PH: 415-398-5326
Impact Brands, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
1600 Sacramento Inn Wy., Ste. 135
Sacramento, CA 95815
PH: 916-549-8646
Applied Planning, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
11762 De Palma Rd., 1-C 310
Corona, CA 92883
PH: 909-937-0333
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
215 N. Fifth St.
Redlands, CA 92374
PH: 909-307-0046
Impact Sciences
Attn: RFP Manager
231 Village Commons, Ste. 17
Camarillo, CA 93012
PH: 805-437-1900
Ascent Environmental, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
455 Capitol Mall, Ste. 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: 916-444-7301
EcoTierra Consulting, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
5776-D Lindero Canyon Rd. #414
Westlake Village, CA 91362
PH: 818-356-9496
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
555 Capitol Mall, Ste. 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: 916-858-5800
Aspen Environmental Group
Attn: RFP Manager
5020 Chesebro Rd., Ste. 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PH: 818-597-3407
EMC Planning Croup Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
PH: 831-649-1799
Krazan & Associates
Attn: RFP Manager
2205 Coy Ln.
Bakersfield, CA 93307
PH: 661-837-9200
Benchmark Resources
Attn: RFP Manager
2515 E. Bidwell St.
Folsom, CA 95630
PH: 916-983-9193
Envicom Corporation
Attn: RFP Manager
4165 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 290
Westlake Village, CA 91362
PH: 818-879-4700
LSA Associates
Attn: RFP Manager
20 Executive Park, Ste. 200
Irvine, CA 92614
PH: (949) 553-0666
CAJA Environmental Services, LLC
Attn: RFP Manager
15350 Sherman Wy., Ste. 315
Van Nuys, CA 91406
PH: 310-469-6700
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
2030 Main St., Ste. 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
PH: 949-794-1180
Meridian Consultants LLC
Attn: RFP Manager
920 Hampshire Rd., Ste.A5,
Westlake Village CA 91361
PH: 805-367-5720
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
113 N. Church St., Ste. 302
Visalia, CA 93291
PH: 559-840-4414
ESA
Attn: RFP Manager
626 Wilshire Blvd., Ste.1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
PH: 213-599-4300
Michael Baker
Attn: RFP Manager
2729 Prospect Dr., Ste. 220
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
PH: 916-361-8384
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
947 Cass St., Ste. 5
Monterey, CA 93940
PH: 831-373-4341
FirstCarbon Solutions
Attn: RFP Manager
250 Commerce, Ste. 250
Irvine, CA 92602
PH: 714-508-4100
MRS Environmental Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
1306 Santa Barbara St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PH: 805-289-3920
Northcutt & Associates
Attn: RFP Manager
4220 Poplar St.
Lake Isabella, CA 93240
PH: 760-379-4626
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
180 N. Ashwood Ave.
Ventura, CA 93003
PH: 805-644-4455
Oliveira Environmental Consulting
Attn: RFP Manager
1645 Hillcrest Pl.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PH: 805-234-7393
Sapphos Environmental Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
430 N. Halstead St.
Pasadena, CA 91107
PH: 626-683-3547
Padre Associates, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
3500 Coffee Road, Ste. B
Bakersfield, CA 93308
PH: 661-829-2686
Stantec
Attn: RFP Manager
555 Capitol Mall, Ste. 650
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: 916-442-3230
Parsons Corporation
Attn: RFP Manager
100 W. Walnut St.
Pasadena, CA 91124
PH: (626) 440-4000
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Attn: RFP Manager
51 W. Dayton St.
Pasadena, CA 91105
PH: 626-240-0587
PlaceWorks
Attn: RFP Manager
3 MacArthur Pl., Ste. 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
PH: 714-966-9220
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
17885 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 500
Irvine, CA 92614
PH: 949-809-5000
Power Engineers, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
731 E. Ball Rd., Ste. 100
Anaheim, CA 92805
PH: 714-507-2700
UltraSystems, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
16431 Scientific Wy.
Irvine, CA 92618-7443
PH: 949-788-4988
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Services
Attn: RFP Manager
1800 30P
th
P St., Ste. 280
Bakersfield, CA 93301
PH: 661-616-5900
WZI Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
1717 28P
th
P St.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
PH: 661-326-1112
QK Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
5080 California Ave., Ste. 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
PH: 661-616-2600
Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
1501 Sports Dr., Ste. A
Sacramento, CA 95834
PH: 916-372-6100
RECON Environmental, Inc.
Attn: RFP Manager
1927 Fifth Ave.
San Diego, CA 92101-2358
PH: 619-308-9333
Independent Contractor’s Agreement (Over $40K)
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 1 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
AGREEMENT NO. ___________________
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT
[Over $40,000]
This INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made
and entered into on _______________________, by and between the CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation, (“CITY”) and
_________________________________________ (“CONTRACTOR”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents that CONTRACTOR is experienced,
well qualified and a specialist in the field of ________________________________.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and
CONTRACTOR mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. In exchange for the Compensation (defined below),
CONTRACTOR shall perform the following:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
(“Scope of Work”). The Scope of Work shall include all items and
procedures necessary to properly complete the task CONTRACTOR has
been hired to perform, whether specifically included in the Scope of Work
or not.
2. COMPENSATION/PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Subject to the conditions of this
section, CITY will pay CONTRACTOR as follows for performing the Scope of
Work (“Compensation”): [choose one]
(1) A total, lump sum payment of $ _______________ after the
Scope of Work is completed to CITY’s satisfaction, or
(2) On an hourly [or time/material] basis in accordance with
the hourly rates as shown on Exhibit A.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 2 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
CITY will pay CONTRACTOR within 30 days after CONTRACTOR submits an
itemized invoice for the portions of the Scope of Work completed and
that invoice is approved by CITY. The Compensation will be the total
amount paid to CONTRACTOR for performing the Scope of Work and
includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket costs and taxes. CITY will
pay no other compensation to CONTRACTOR. In no case will CITY
compensate CONTRACTOR more than $_____________ for performing the
Scope of Work.
3. TERM. Unless terminated sooner, as set forth herein, this Agreement shall
terminate on _________________ [Date].
4. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement after giving the
other party written notice, as provided herein, ten days before the
termination is effective.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall, at CONTRACTOR’s sole
cost, comply with all of the requirements of Municipal, State, and Federal
authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to
this Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or
growing out of this Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and
Federal statutes, rules or regulations, and permitting requirements now in
force or which may hereafter be in force including, without limitation,
obtaining a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate (Bakersfield
Municipal Code Chapter 5.02) where required.
6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for CONTRACTOR’s
performance of the Scope of Work as an independent contractor.
CONTRACTOR is not an agent or employee of the CITY for any purpose
and is not entitled to any of the benefits provided by CITY to its
employees. This Agreement shall not be construed as forming a
partnership or any other association with CONTRACTOR other than that of
an independent contractor.
7. DIRECTION. CONTRACTOR retains the right to control or direct the manner
in which the services described herein are performed.
8. EQUIPMENT. CONTRACTOR will supply all equipment, tools, materials and
supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
9. STARTING WORK. CONTRACTOR shall not begin work until authorized to do
so in writing by CITY. No work will be authorized before the date first
written above.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 3 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
10. KEY PERSONNEL. CONTRACTOR shall name all key personnel to be
assigned to perform the Scope of Work. All key personnel shall be
properly licensed and have the experience to perform the work called for
under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall provide background for each
of the key personnel including, without limitation, resumes and work
experience performing work similar to the Scope of Work. CITY reserves
the right to approve key personnel. Once the key personnel are
approved, CONTRACTOR shall not change such personnel without CITY’s
written approval.
11. INCLUDED DOCUMENTS. Any bid documents, including, without limitation,
special provisions and standard specifications and any Request for
Proposals, Request for Qualifications and responses thereto relating to this
Agreement are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
12. LICENSES. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect
or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses,
permits and approvals which are legally required for CONTRACTOR to
practice its profession and perform the Scope of Work. If CONTRACTOR is
a corporation, at least one officer or key employee shall hold the required
licenses or professional degrees. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, at least
one partner shall hold the required licensees or professional degrees.
13. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. The Scope of Work shall be performed in
conformity with all legal requirements and industry standards observed by
a specialist of CONTRACTOR’s profession in California.
14. SB 854 COMPLIANCE. To the extent Labor Code Section 1771.1 applies to
this Agreement, a contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid
on, be listed in a bid proposal, be subject to the requirements of Section
4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any
contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently
registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section
1725.5. It is not a violation of Labor Code Section 1771.1 for an
unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section
7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5
of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to
perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is
awarded. The prime contractor is required to post job site notices in
compliance with Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 16451. This
project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the
Department of Industrial Relations.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 4 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
15. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against
another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver
of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time and shall
not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement.
16. INSURANCE.
16.1 Types and Limits of Insurance. In addition to any other insurance or
security required under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR must procure
and maintain, for the duration of this Agreement, the types and
limits of insurance below ("Basic Insurance Requirements").
16.1.1 Automobile liability insurance, providing coverage for
owned, non-owned, and hired autos on an occurrence
basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more
persons, property damage, and personal injury, with limits
of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
16.1.2 Commercial general liability insurance, unless otherwise
approved by CITY’s Risk Manager, providing coverage on
an occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of
one or more persons, property damage, and personal
injury, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence. The policy must:
16.1.2.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the
terms of this Agreement;
16.1.2.2 Provide products and completed operations
coverage;
16.1.2.3 Provide premises, operations, and mobile
equipment coverage; and
16.1.2.4 Contain an additional insured endorsement in
favor of CITY and its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees, and designated volunteers.
16.1.3 Workers' compensation insurance with limits of not less
than $1,000,000 per occurrence. In accordance with the
provisions of Labor Code Section 3700, every contractor
will be required to secure the payment of compensation
to his employees. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861,
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 5 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
CONTRACTOR must submit to CITY the following
certification before beginning any work on the
Improvements:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the
Labor Code which require every employer to be
insured against liability for worker’s compensation or
to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of
the work of this contract.
By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR is submitting
the certification required above.
The policy must contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of
CITY and its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees,
and designated volunteers.
16.2 General Provisions Applying to All Insurance Types.
16.2.1 All policies required of CONTRACTOR must be written on a
first-dollar coverage basis, or contain a deductible
provision. Subject to CITY’s advance approval,
CONTRACTOR may utilize a self-insured retention in any or
all of the policies provided, but the policy or policies may
not contain language, whether added by endorsement or
contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits
satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by
anyone other than the named insured or by any means
including other insurance or which is intended to defeat
the intent or protection of an additional insured.
16.2.2 All policies required of CONTRACTOR must be primary
insurance as to CITY and its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees, or designated volunteers and any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY and its
mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and
designated volunteers must be excess of CONTRACTOR’s
insurance and must not contribute with it.
16.2.3 The insurance required above, except for workers’
compensation insurance, must be placed with insurers
with a Best’s rating as approved by CITY’s Risk Manager,
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 6 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
but in no event less than A-:VII. Any deductibles, self-
insured retentions, or insurance in lesser amounts, or lack of
certain types of insurance otherwise required by this
Agreement, or insurance rated below Best’s A-:VII, must be
declared prior to execution of this Agreement and
approved by CITY in writing.
16.2.4 The insurance required in this section must be maintained
until the Scope of Work is satisfactorily completed as
evidenced by CITY’s written acceptance. All policies must
provide that there will be continuing liability thereon,
notwithstanding any recovery on any policy.
16.2.5 Full compensation for all premiums which the
CONTRACTOR is required to pay to satisfy the Basic
Insurance Requirements shall be considered as included in
the prices paid for the performance of the Scope of Work,
and no additional allowance will be made therefor or for
additional premiums which may be required by extensions
of the policies of insurance.
16.2.6 It is further understood and agreed by CONTRACTOR that
its liability to CITY will not in any way be limited to or
affected by the amount of insurance obtained and
carried by CONTRACTOR in connection with this
Agreement.
16.2.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY, if any part of the
Scope of Work is subcontracted, the Basic Insurance
Requirements must be provided by, or on behalf of, all
subcontractors even if CITY has approved lesser insurance
requirements for CONTRACTOR, and all subcontractors
must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this
section.
17. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. In the case of public works contracts, CITY will timely
notify CONTRACTOR of third party claims relating to this Agreement. CITY
shall be allowed to recover from CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR shall
pay on demand, all costs of notification.
18. INDEMNITY. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
CITY and CITY’s officers, agents and employees against any and all
liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against
them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 7 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by CONTRACTOR
or CONTRACTOR’s employees, agents, independent contractors,
companies, or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising
from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in
part by a party indemnified hereunder, except for CITY’s sole active
negligence or willful misconduct.
19. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement nor any rights, interests, duties,
liabilities, obligations or responsibilities arising out of, concerning or related
in any way to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, accounts,
actions, causes of action, claims, damages, demands, liabilities, losses,
obligations, or reckonings of any kind or nature whatsoever, for
compensatory or exemplary and punitive damages, or declaratory,
equitable or injunctive relief, whether based on contract, equity, tort or
other theories of recovery provided for by the common or statutory law)
may be assigned or transferred by any party. Any such assignment is
prohibited, and shall be unenforceable and otherwise null and void
without the need for further action by the non-assigning party or parties.
20. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. CONTRACTOR shall maintain accurate
accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all
costs incurred in performance of this Agreement. Such records and
documentation shall be kept at CONTRACTOR's office during the term of
this Agreement, and for a period of three years from the date of the final
payment hereunder, and made available to CITY representatives upon
request at any time during regular business hours.
21. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to
the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and
their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors
and assigns.
22. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on behalf
of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly
authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to
each and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.
23. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be considered as an original and be
effective as such.
24. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product
of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this
Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 8 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
the interpretation of this Agreement.
25. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or
specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached
hereto, the terms, conditions, or specifications set forth in this Agreement
shall prevail. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are
deemed incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually
attached.
26. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party shall execute and deliver such papers,
documents, and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or
appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of
the parties to this Agreement.
27. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California will govern the
validity of this Agreement and its interpretation and performance. Any
litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kern
County, California.
28. INTERPRETATION. Whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender
includes the feminine and neuter, and the singular number includes the
plural.
29. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written
representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing
approved by the City Council and signed by all the parties.
30. NON-INTEREST. No CITY officer or employee shall hold any interest in this
Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).
31. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing
and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and
be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United
States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other
address designated by notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
CITY HALL
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 9 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
CONTRACTOR: ____________________________
32. RESOURCE ALLOCATION. All CITY obligations under the terms of this
Agreement are subject to the appropriation and allocation of resources
by the City Council.
33. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. All documents, plans, and drawings, maps,
photographs, and other papers, or copies thereof prepared by
CONTRACTOR pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon
preparation, become CITY property.
34. TAX NUMBERS.
CONTRACTOR’s Federal Tax ID Number
CONTRACTOR is a corporation? Yes No (Please check one.)
[Signatures on Following Page]
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 10 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be executed as of the date first written above.
“CITY” “CONTRACTOR”
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
I have received and reviewed the sample
CONTRACTOR’s AGREEMENT including
the INDEMNITY clause which was sent to
me with the City’s RFQ. My signature be-
low shall signify our firm’s acceptance of a
By: _______________________ final version of the same contract except
Karen K. Goh for “Scope of Work” and “Compensation”
Mayor clauses. If our firm is selected for awarding
a contract for the project as described in
said RFQ for On Call Construction Inspec-
tion Services of City Public Works pro-
jects.
Initialed by: ________________________
Print Name: ________________________
Title: _____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:___________________________
(NAME & TITLE)
Insurance:____________
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY DEPARTMENT NAME
By:_______________________________
DEPARTMENT HEAD NAME
TITLE
COUNTERSIGNED:
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT – Over $40,000 Page 11 of 11
S:\Advance Planning\11_Current GP Update\03_RFP\01_BGP Strategy\01_RFP\Independent Contractor's Agmt_Over $40K_Rev101119.Docx
Updated – September 11, 2017
By:_______________________________
RANDY McKEEGAN
Finance Director
Attachment: Exhibit ___
General Plan Update Strategy
and Options Report
prepared for
City of Bakersfield
Planning Division, Development Service Department
1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor
Bakersfield, California 93301
Contact: Steven Esselman, Principal Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
7080 North Whitney Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, California 93720
June 2020
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
1 General Plan Update Options ......................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Focused Update .................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Policy Update ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Comprehensive Update ...................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 9
2 Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan ..........................................................................10
2.1 General Recommendations ..............................................................................................10
2.2 Recommendations for Individual Elements and Components .........................................15
2.3 Other Considerations ........................................................................................................28
3 General Plan Requirements ..........................................................................................................29
3.1 2017 Update to General Plan Guidelines ..........................................................................30
3.2 General Plan Legislation ....................................................................................................31
4 References ....................................................................................................................................32
Tables
Table 1 Analysis of Issues to Address with an Update and Options ................................................ 5
Table 2 General Recommendations for the General Plan .............................................................14
Appendices
Appendix A Recent General Plan Related Legislation
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
ii
This page left blank intentionally.
Executive Summary
1
Executive Summary
To better position the City of Bakersfield (City) for the future, the City commissioned a study to
examine the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (General Plan), which was adopted in 2002, and
subsequently updated in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2016, and to recommend at least three
options for updating the General Plan based on the analysis and findings. When originally adopted,
the General Plan was based on the latest data and trend analysis and accepted best practices in
comprehensive planning. However, it is recognized that to adjust to changing community dynamics,
to keep policies and programs fresh and relevant, and to comply with state law, general plans are
reviewed and revised periodically.
The City has experienced unprecedented growth since the plan’s last adoption and recognizes the
need to update the General Plan to better align with the community’s future land use planning
vision, goals, and implementation strategies. Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon), an environmental
and planning consulting firm with land use planning expertise, was retained by the City and charged
with the following tasks:
Review the City’s General Plan, focusing on its content, clarity, and intended purpose
Assess the completeness and ease of use associated with the City’s General Plan, and where
appropriate, recommend additional provisions or other improvements
Submit a Summary Report of the consultant’s findings and recommendations
The goal of Rincon’s analysis was to gain a clear understanding of the issues and expectations and
create a reasonable range of options for a general plan update process. The report identifies actions
the City can take that will best position the General Plan to effectively and efficiently provide a
roadmap to guide future development while achieving the City’s vision and goals. Specific actions
are also recommended to enhance the consistency, clarity, contemporary nature, and completeness
of the document, which will make it better understood and more useful to public officials, citizens
and other stakeholders as the long-term vision Bakersfield is executed.
To begin our work, Rincon examined the content, clarity, and intended purpose of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan and have determined what works, what does not work, where change is
needed, identified deficiencies related to updated regulations, its legal adequacy, and strategized
how best to separate the City components from the County components in the General Plan. Rincon
assessed current trends in and outside Bakersfield and engaged with a number of staff members
and to determine the current day-to-day utility of the General Plan and ease of implementation
during the processing of development projects in the City. Our review excluded the Housing
Element, since the current element was prepared separately from the General Plan, and has its own
set of policies, procedures, and timing restrictions.
This report provides a blueprint for moving forward and presents our findings and focuses on three
options:
A Focused Update that includes the updating of all legally required elements but no parcel-
specific land use designation updates
A Policy Update that includes the Focused Update option plus specific, locally important, policy-
driven updates in some or all the existing General Plan elements and limited, parcel-specific,
existing land use designation updates
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
2
A Comprehensive Update that overhauls all sections and technical information, incorporates all
new State planning laws and guidance regarding general plan updates, executes a large-scale
public engagement program, and updates all parcel-specific land use designations.
The report is organized around the analysis of these three general plan update options and is
intended to be used by City of Bakersfield as a guide when selecting their preferred approach to
updating the General Plan.
Recommendation of this Report
Recommendation is for a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan.
This report examined the three options for updating Bakersfield’s General Plan, as listed above.
Table 1 provides an overview of the identified issues that should be addressed by an update to the
General Plan and which options satisfy each issue.
Based on that analysis the report recommends that the City of Bakersfield undertake a
comprehensive update to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. A comprehensive update to
the General Plan can provide opportunities to engage the community, confirm the long-term vision
for Bakersfield, better control land use decisions in the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), and fully
update, evaluate, and modernize all parts of the document. A comprehensive update would be the
most legally defensible document with its corresponding EIR.
General Plan Update Options
3
1 General Plan Update Options
The General Plan is the primary comprehensive roadmap for guiding future development in counties
and cities throughout California. California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires each
county and city to adopt a general plan for its future development, as follows:
Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and
of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgement bears relation to its
planning.
There are no requirements for how often a general plan must be updated or how updates should be
structured. Jurisdictions are left to determine when the long-range planning document has become
stale and how to best address changing conditions that call for an update to a general plan. A more
detailed description of the State’s requirements for general plans is contained in Section 2 and a full
list of legislation that affects the general plan is contained in Appendix A.
The City is currently reviewing whether and how to best update the General Plan. Since its adoption
of the General Plan, Bakersfield has changed in several ways. It has continued to grow; both in
population and geographic scope. The demographics of Bakersfield’s citizens have changed in terms
of race and ethnic make-up as well. Bakersfield is currently 151.20 square miles, having increased by
37.03 square miles since the year 2000 (City of Bakersfield 2019, 2015). Any General Plan update
option must incorporate the effects of important citywide trends related to population,
transportation and transit, the economy, and housing to be considered adequate.
Based on our analysis and staff input, it has been determined that the following issues should be
addressed by an update to the General Plan:
The General Plan lacks a unified vision and guiding principles. The General Plan contains no
vision statement or guiding principles. As such, goals, policies, and programs have no direction.
The General Plan does not address current conditions. Changing demographic and economic
conditions that have resulted from the community’s growth are not adequately addressed.
Plans for the future are based on outdated information, and current regional plans are not
reflected in it.
The General Plan is a joint planning document with Kern County. This joint document allows
Kern County to approve development within the Metro-Bakersfield boundaries without
requiring input from the City or following City development standards. Kern County has already
started the process of updating their County-wide General Plan which will repeal this joint
planning document.
The General Plan lacks modern elements. Sustainability, arts and culture, and agriculture are
examples of optional elements that could enhance the Bakersfield General Plan.
The General Plan does not consider recent laws affecting general plans. The General Plan does
not address environmental justice, climate resiliency strategies, or complete streets. Not
including these items can negatively affect the City’s opportunity for State grant funding and
some streamlining opportunities for future land use and development projects.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
4
The General Plan does not address contemporary planning issues. The Plan does not address
such issues as healthy communities/public health, economic development, greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reduction, alternative forms of energy, and sustainability.
Goals and policies contained in the General Plan no longer fit Bakersfield. Some goals and
policies have not been realized; so it makes more sense to develop new goals and policies for
Bakersfield rather than to change outdated aspirations that may no longer reflect the City’s
desired plan.
The General Plan is not user friendly. The General Plan contains graphics that are extremely
hard to read. There is little use of eye-catching color and/or photos. The document is not
searchable or organized with digital bookmarks and other newer electronic document
technologies.
Technical data and appendices are out of date. Data and planning horizons are out of date
making it impossible for current conditions to be measured against thresholds. Outdated utility
capacities could result in the approval of projects without adequate facilities.
There is no link between policies and implementation programs. The General Plan refers to
local and regional plans that have since been updated; many have been updated more than
once.
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not provide for development
streamlining. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation and analysis has
changed significantly since 2002. It is difficult for current development projects to tier new
CEQA analyses off the approved EIR. Furthermore, the outdated EIR is not as legally defensible
as a new CEQA document (either supplemental EIR or a new EIR) that would be prepared as part
of one of the update options.
At this time there are three options, or approaches, being considered for the update: 1) Focused
Update, 2) Policy Update, and 3) Comprehensive Update. While each option allows for some of the
above issues to be addressed, only the Comprehensive Update option will address all issues. Table 1
below provides a more detailed breakdown on how each option will satisfy the issues that should be
addressed by a general plan update.
General Plan Update Options
5
Table 1 Analysis of Issues to Address with an Update and Options
General Plan Update Options
Issue Solution
Focused
Update
Policy
Update
Comprehensive
Update
The General Plan lacks a unified vision
and guiding principles.
Undertake visioning efforts. Develop a unified vision and guiding principles that
resonate throughout the General Plan update.
X
The General Plan does not address
current conditions.
Update all technical analyses for information on current conditions. Update all
figures, tables, and graphics so they reflect current conditions.
X X
The General Plan is a joint planning
document with Kern County.
Prepare a general plan update that focuses on Bakersfield and prioritizes City issues.
Provide clear direction for development to City standards in the City’s SOI. Eliminate
reliance on the joint planning document.
X
The General Plan lacks modern
elements.
Reexamine topics that are important to Bakersfield. Consider the addition of other
elements to address topics of importance, such as an Economic Development or
Sustainability Element.
X
The General Plan does not consider
recent laws affecting general plans.
Update all elements for compliance with state, regional, and local legislation. X X X
The General Plan does not address
contemporary planning issues.
Examine contemporary planning issues such as healthy communities/public health,
economic development, GHG emissions reduction, alternative forms of energy, and
sustainability. Develop goals and policies relative to these topics and/or consider the
inclusion of new elements to address.
X
Goals and policies contained in the
General Plan no longer fit Bakersfield.
Reexamine existing goals and policies. Revise where appropriate and/or develop
new policies to address the City’s long-term vision.
X X
The General Plan is not user friendly. Create an aesthetically pleasing and easy to use document. Ensure that the
document is searchable and organized with digital bookmarks and other newer
electronic document technologies.
X X
Technical data and appendices are out
of date.
Update all technical analyses for information on current conditions. Update all
figures, tables, and graphics so they reflect current conditions.
X X
There is no link between policies and
implementation programs.
Reexamine policies and implementing programs. Revise where appropriate and/or
develop new programs to carry out the policies that address the City’s long-term
vision.
X
The General Plan EIR does not provide
for development streamlining.
Prepare a new EIR that addresses all current issue areas, as outlined by Appendix G
of the CEQA Guidelines.
X X X
Issues Addressed 2 6 11
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
6
1.1 Focused Update
Focused general plan updates are typically undertaken when a city feels its general plan is up to
date and only minor changes are required to address State legislation passed since the document
was last update. For Bakersfield, the Focused Update would involve updating all legally required
elements to comply with State legislation (as outlined in Appendix A), but no parcel-specific land use
designation updates would be performed and updates to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code would not be required. Environmental analysis of the Focused Update would be
required under CEQA.
Approach
This approach would involve the following:
Update the Land Use Element to comply with state legislation
Update the Safety Element to comply with state legislation
Update the Circulation Element to comply with state legislation
Update the Conservation Element to comply with state legislation
Update the Open Space Element to comply with state legislation
Prepare CEQA analysis; likely an EIR or possibly a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR
While this approach is the simplest and most cost effective of the three options, it does not allow
the City to address all of the issues detailed above. First, the Focused Update would not allow for a
fresh look at long-range goals and policies, and the current vision for Bakersfield would not be
reflected. The document would not have a cohesive look and structure and could potentially appear
even more disjointed than it does currently. Technical analyses would not be updated, resulting in
technical data that still does not reflect current conditions. A new focused CEQA document would
allow for some streamlining of future environmental review. See Table 1 for more information.
Cost
Consultant costs for a Focused Update to the General Plan, as described above, could range from
approximately $85,000 to $175,000. This includes preparation of the updated elements and CEQA
documentation for the general plan update.
Schedule
It is estimated that a Focused Update to the General Plan, as described above, would take 6 to 12
months to complete.
1.2 Policy Update
Policy updates to general plans are similar to focused updates in that the scope of work is limited.
However, the Policy Update option would also address specific, locally important policies and plans
for their general plan update. For this general plan update, this approach would include compliance
with regional plans such as the 2018 Kern County Regional Transportation Plan, 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan, and 2019 Bicycle Plan and Complete Streets Facilities. Under the Policy Update,
General Plan Update Options
7
limited parcel-specific existing land use designation updates would be performed, only to ensure
consistency with elements that require updating under this scenario.
Approach
This approach would involve the following:
Update the Land Use Element to comply with state legislation, regional, and local policies and
plans. Land use designations that conflict with other documents, or no longer needed, should be
revised or deleted.
Update the Safety Element to comply with state legislation, regional, and local policies and
plans.
Perform a citywide traffic impact analysis to gain information on current conditions. Update the
Circulation Element with findings and to comply with State legislation, regional, and local
policies and plans including addressing the new CEQA Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) threshold
requirement.
Update the Conservation Element to comply with state legislation, regional, and local policies
and plans.
Combine the Open Space and Parks Elements, and update to comply with State legislation,
regional, and local policies and plans.
Perform a noise technical analysis to gain information on current conditions and provide
updated noise contour maps. Update the Noise Element with findings and the new contour
maps and for compliance with regional and local plans and policies.
Update Title 17 (Zoning) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code as necessary to address limited land
use designation updates.
Prepare an EIR to satisfy CEQA requirements.
The Policy Update approach to the general plan update would force a larger update to the
document compared to the Focused Update option, and would satisfy more of the issues identified
above. Some long-range goals and policies could be refined as the elements were updated, but it is
unlikely that the current vision for Bakersfield would be fully reflected. Updates to technical
analyses would result in the inclusion of current data, and figures would be updated to reflect
current conditions. The document would have more of a cohesive look, although a unified vision
and guiding principles would not be developed, and modern elements such as an Economic
Development or Sustainability Element would not be included. A new CEQA document would allow
for some streamlining of future environmental review. See Table 1 for more information.
Cost
Consultant costs for a Policy Update to the General Plan, as described above, could range from
approximately $200,000 to $500,000. This includes preparation of the updated elements and CEQA
documentation for the general plan update.
Schedule
It is estimated that a Policy Update to the General Plan, as described above, would take 12 to 24
months to complete.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
8
1.3 Comprehensive Update
A comprehensive update to a general plan provides a jurisdiction with the opportunity to reevaluate
the long-range vision for the community. It involves a complete overhaul of all sections and
technical information, incorporates all new state planning laws and guidance regarding General Plan
updates, executes a large-scale public engagement program, and updates all parcel-specific land use
designations.
Comprehensive updates are often found to
be necessary every 20-30 years. It is
recognized that even the best long-range
plan will grow stale and less relevant over
time as jurisdictions change and adapt to
shifts in demographics and economics.
Bakersfield has seen a number of changes
since the development of the General Plan.
Since 2002, Bakersfield’s population has
grown from approximately 250,000 to
386,839, a 55 % increase. This represents an
annual increase of approximately 3.06 %. It is
anticipated that Bakersfield’s population will
increase to 468,175 by the year 2030,
representing an increase of 17.37 % in the next ten years, while it is estimated that the Bakersfield
metropolitan population will climb to 624,900 by the year 2030 (City of Bakersfield 2015).
In addition to the growth, Bakersfield’s population has diversified since the year 2000. In 2000,
51.15 % of the City’s population was white, compared to 37.8 percent in 2010. The Hispanic
population has increased from 32.5 % in 2000 to 45.5 % in 2010 (City of Bakersfield 2019). General
Plan objectives and policies must be reexamined to ensure that the factors that make Bakersfield
unique and a desirable place to live, work, and visit, are maintained and enhanced.
Approach
This approach will involve the following:
A fresh new look and format would be designed with integrated graphics that includes an
electronic version for use on the City’s website.
New, updated, or modified vision and guiding principles for the community would be
established.
All elements would be updated to comply with state legislation, regional, and local policies and
plans.
All land use designations would be revisited, with some designations likely deleted and others
created. The land use map would be revised.
Any required technical analyses would be performed, and data would be incorporated into the
associated element.
New, contemporary elements could be added to the general plan update to address topics that
are of great importance to the City, such as economic development or sustainability.
Development and execution of a large-scale public outreach program.
General Plan Update Options
9
Update Title 17 (Zoning) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to address land use designation and
map revisions.
Prepare EIR to satisfy CEQA requirements and allow for streamlining development projects
consistent with the General Plan. Creates an opportunity to integrate the EIR and general plan
update whereby any required CEQA mitigation is developed as a general plan update policy to
be self-mitigating to further streamline development.
A Comprehensive Update would satisfy all of the issues identified above. However, this is the
costliest and most time consuming of the three options. Integrating a new CEQA document with the
general plan update would allow for streamlining of future environmental review and be the most
legally defensible. See Table 1 for more information.
Cost
Consultant costs for a Comprehensive Update to the General Plan, as described above, could range
from approximately $650,000 to $3,000,000. This includes preparation of the updated elements and
CEQA documentation for the general plan update.
Schedule
It is estimated that a Comprehensive Update to the General Plan, as described above, would take
two to three years to complete.
1.4 Recommendation
Recommendation is for a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan.
Based on the above analysis and the supplemental details on key items to update and proposed
recommendations in Section 3, we recommend that the City of Bakersfield undertake a
comprehensive update to the General Plan. Even with updates to the document since 2002, the
General Plan does not reflect contemporary planning practices and does not provide a
comprehensive vision for Bakersfield. The General Plan should provide the City with a solid policy
foundation that reflects the community’s values. A comprehensive update to the General Plan can
provide opportunities to engage the community, confirm the long-term vision for Bakersfield, better
control land use decisions within the SOI, and fully update, evaluate, and modernize all parts of the
document. A comprehensive update would be the most legally defensible document with its
corresponding EIR.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
10
2 Recommendations for Bakersfield
General Plan
Over time, the needs and values of the community can change, and a general plan should reflect the
current community’s vision for its future. The current General Plan is a thorough, comprehensive
policy and technical document that reflects the intent and spirit of the community vision and
California general plan law that was in place when the document was approved (2002). However, to
adjust to changing dynamics and to comply with state law, general plans are reviewed and revised
periodically. The City’s current General Plan was adopted in 2002, with a 20-year horizon based on
input from Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020 (City of Bakersfield 2002), with amendments occurring
at various points since that time. Subsequent amendments have addressed basic legal
requirements, and the document as a whole includes a broad range of issues that are important to
the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI), . However, the General Plan does not fully comply with
recent changes in state law, does not address many contemporary planning issues, lacks a
comprehensive vision and guiding principles, contains outdated data and technical information, and
the visual aesthetic does not match the City’s new brand identity, “The Sound of Something Better.”
For these reasons, and reasons outlined in Section 1, an update to the General Plan is warranted at
this time. Regardless of which of the three options is chosen, the update being considered should
use a 15 to 25 year planning horizon, looking out into the year 2035 or even 2045.
2.1 General Recommendations
Our general recommendations for the general plan update process are as follows:
Data Updates
Since the adoption of the General Plan and its amendments, there have been significant changes in
demographics, existing conditions, land use, and economic and social trends in Bakersfield and the
larger region. In addition to changes to the existing setting, changes in data gathering and modeling
capabilities have dramatically improved in the past 20 years, allowing more accurate analysis of
future impacts and to better predict potential hazard impacts on the city. These changes are
important to capture for policy and land use decisions, and each element of the general plan update
will need to be updated to reflect changes in demographic, environmental, and economic data.
Almost all technical data needs to be updated and incorporated throughout the General Plan with
maps, tables, and supporting text.
Graphic Design and Document Layout
Given the timing of the document, the General Plan was likely prepared with an older version of a
standard word processing software such as Microsoft Word. While this type of software allows for
changes to the document text to be easily made, the graphic design, layout, and overall look of the
document is significantly constrained and appears out of date with modern standards. Migrating the
General Plan to a page layout program would have several significant benefits, such as meeting
current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for public documents and ensuring the
document is presented clearly online and is searchable, as printed documents are becoming less
common.
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
11
In addition to a more attractive and modernized document, using a more streamlined, graphic-
focused layout allows for greater reader understanding, high quality data visualization, and an
organized, easy to follow format. This creates a general plan that is more user-friendly for non-
technical readers, allowing staff, landowners, and the general public greater access and
understanding of the City’s goals and vision.
If preferable, the general plan update can also be migrated to an entirely online format, allowing for
full sorting, searching, and tracking capabilities. This approach has been taken by an increasing
number of cities and counties across the State and country, and provides even greater functionality
in a way that can be customized to the needs of the community.
Source: Union City 2019
Vision and Guiding Principles
The existing General Plan was adopted in 2002, nearly two decades ago and is at the end of its
original planning horizon. Changes in the City’s demographic makeup, land use, economic structure,
and underlying values, as well as changes in the larger regional, national, and global settings call for
a revisioning of what the community values and the direction it wishes to go in the coming decades.
A strong, clear vision statement will capture the community’s key values and aspirations for the
future. The guiding principles will establish broad benchmarks for the rest of the General Plan
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
12
Update. The vision and guiding principles established at the outset of the general plan update
process will become the underlying foundation of the goals and policies in the plan.
Source: Union City 2019
Goal, Policy, and Implementation Program Development
Following the update of the community vision, guiding principles, and existing setting data, the
General Plan goals and policies will need to be updated. Updating these goals and policies will not
only ensure their consistency with the vision and guiding principles and the incorporation of up-to-
date scientific data and analysis, it will allow for a more streamlined and implementable approach,
focusing on best practices and the tracking of goal and policy implementation.
The update to the goals and policies will also allow the City to consider contemporary planning
issues, including economic development, climate change adaptation, resiliency, sustainability,
equity, and community health. Incorporating new technological considerations and planning
techniques will also be important as the profession and the world continues to evolve.
In addition to updates to goals and policies, implementation programs should be updated and/or
developed to provide for administration and execution of goals and policies. The Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines suggest that every policy be carried out by
implementation measures (OPR 2017). This does not necessarily mean that every policy must have
its own implementation program. However, if a goal or policy requires a program, the program
should be stated and there should be a concise link between the two, as well as assigned
accountabilities and general timeframes.
Legislative Compliance
State planning laws have changed since the City adopted the 2002 General Plan. Senate Bill (SB) 743
requires the City to consider alternatives to the traditional Level of Service standard for evaluating
traffic impacts (CEQA requirement as of July 1, 2020). SB 1000 requires local governments to
address environmental justice in their general plans. There are new CEQA requirements for
addressing cultural resources and consultation with Native Americans (SB 18, Assembly Bill (AB) 52).
SB 32, SB 375, and SB 379 place new expectations on local government to address climate change.
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
13
The OPR published new General Plan
Guidelines in 2017. The General Plan
Update must address changes in State
law based on those new Guidelines.
Please see Section 3.2 for additional
details on key general plan legislation
and Appendix A for a full list of recent
state legislation that may require
implementation within an updated
general plan.
CEQA Streamlining
All general plan amendments or updates
are subject to environmental review under CEQA. If the City decides to undertake an update to the
General Plan, the preparation of a new EIR would be the appropriate level of environmental analysis
under CEQA.
Although the preparation of an EIR for a General Plan update is a time consuming and costly
undertaking, it is required, and the City would see benefits. The EIR for the General Plan was
prepared in 2003 and baseline conditions have changed. Using the existing EIR makes it difficult for
development projects to “streamline” future environmental review. Section 15183(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines mandates:
…that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing
zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require
additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are
project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines
the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
This is permitted as CEQA review for a general plan looks at the “big picture,” allowing a community
to align its long-term vision with important environmental objectives, such as reducing single-
occupant vehicle trips to reduce the amount of GHG emissions in the region. Integrating CEQA
mitigation as general plan policies to reduce identified significant impacts can further streamline
development projects as they will only be required to follow the identified general plan policies or
implementation programs that would already address the significant impact. Subsequent
environmental documents for an individual development project can be narrow and focused on
unique or unanalyzed issues. This reduces costs attributed to environmental document preparation
and staff time associated with the review and approval of these documents. It also creates an
incentive for future development to follow the plan to take advantage of this streamlining.
Table 2 below provides a more detailed breakdown on how each option will satisfy the general
recommendations for an update to the General Plan.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
14
Table 2 General Recommendations for the General Plan
General Plan Update Options
Issue Solution Focused Update Policy Update Comprehensive Update
Data Updates Update all technical data and incorporate throughout the
General Plan with maps, tables, and supporting text.
X X
Graphic Design and Document
Layout
Migrate the General Plan to a page layout program; utilize a
more streamlined, graphic-focused layout and easy to follow
format.
X X
Vision and Guiding Principles Establish a strong, clear vision statement. Develop guiding
principles to establish broad performance benchmarks.
X
Goal, Policy and Implementation
Program Development
Update all goals and policies to consider contemporary
planning issues and new technological considerations. Update
or develop implementation programs to provide for execution
of goals and policies.
X
Legislative Compliance Update all elements for compliance with State, regional, and
local legislation.
X X X
CEQA Streamlining Prepare a new EIR that addresses all current issue areas, as
outlined by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
X X X
Issues Addressed 2 4 6
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
15
2.2 Recommendations for Individual Elements and
Components
This section provides an analysis of each element in the current General Plan and recommends
changes for each. As mentioned in Section 1, although many of these changes can be accomplished
through any of the three general plan update options presented in this report, the number of
changes that have been identified due to age of the document and compliance with California
legislation, would be more appropriately addressed through a comprehensive update.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element is the primary source of policy guidance for the regulation of growth and
development in a general plan. The element establishes the fundamental policy rationale for a more
balanced, sustainable city. Furthermore, the element describes the current land use allocation in a
city as well as the zoning districts that govern these land uses.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
The Land Use Element was amended in 2015 to include a discussion on Disadvantaged
Unincorporated Communities (DUC). This discussion is included as an Appendix to the Land Use
Element and was added in response to the approval of SB 244 in 2011, which required the analysis
of DUCs on or before the next adoption of the City’s Housing Element.
A DUC contains at least 12 registered voters (or a cluster of 10 homes) and is historically considered
to be a low-income area with a median household income that is less than 80 percent of the state
median income (City of Bakersfield 2016). These communities often lack basic infrastructure, such
as streets, sidewalks, and storm drain systems.
The City has identified ten DUC territories:
Oildale
Mt. Vernon
East Niles
Belle Terrace
Casa Loma
Rexland Acres
Stacey
East Bakersfield
Greenfield
Lamont/Weedpatch
In these areas, median household income is less than $48,875, and included census block groups
grouped together based on proximity and water/wastewater service providers (Bakersfield 2015).
Not all of these areas are eligible for annexation into the City but may be eligible in the future if
certain criteria are met. Areas eligible for annexation must be located within an urban service area
designated by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), not designated as prime
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
16
agricultural land, and designated for urban growth in a city’s general plan. The cost and adequacy of
public services in the area must also be evaluated (OPR 2012).
Although the Appendix to the Land Use Element (Appendix A) brought the City into compliance with
SB 244, the analysis can be perceived as an afterthought since it is not wrapped into the element
itself. Appendix A does not include DUCs in the discussion of existing conditions, and DUCs are not
called out on other figures provided in the Land Use Element. In addition, impacts of the General
Plan on DUCs is not addressed in the General Plan Final EIR, and it does not appear that a separate
CEQA analysis was prepared for Land Use Element Appendix A. Through the general plan update
process, there is an opportunity to incorporate policies for annexation of these areas and to develop
policies for proposed improvements prior to annexation to meet current City standards to simplify
future annexation.
Sphere of Influence and Annexation Coordination
Government Code Section 65300 states that a City’s general plan must cover the territory within the
boundaries of the adopting jurisdiction as well as “any land outside of its boundaries which in the
planning agency’s judgement bears relation to its planning” (OPR 2017). A city’s SOI represents the
future probable physical boundary and service area of the city and is typically included in a city’s
general plan to represent that city’s entire planning area. With increasing urbanization and
important issues that transcend local boundaries, such as transportation, air quality, and floodplain
management, the regional perspective is becoming more important.
The General Plan Land Use Element contains a brief paragraph on the City’s SOI boundary and
depicts the boundary line on one figure. As part of any update, the element should be revised to
expand the SOI discussion with relevant, current information. Intergovernmental coordination is
also referenced, as are proposed structures to ensure cooperation amongst agencies, but it is our
understanding that no formal agreements have been established. Formal agreements to protect the
SOI must be a priority in the next general plan update to allow the City to better manage growth
and development within its SOI.
During the update, it is recommended that the City and County work together to delineate planning
areas and establish formal agreements for processing development proposals to ensure that
development within the City’s SOI is consistent with City standards. Other cities have developed
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) to formally address cooperation protocols. Collaboration
while establishing planning areas can proactively help to avoid land disputes and avoid additional
costs (OPR 2017). Kern County is currently working on their own comprehensive general plan
update, which provides an opportunity for the two jurisdictions to work together in the
development of formal agreements, and potentially land use goals and policies that are in
alignment. Both jurisdictions would benefit from this coordination as future development would be
both logical and orderly. A re-examination of the current SOI boundary with the dissolution of the
joint planning document would seem prudent at this time as well. This re-examination could create
specific policies within and adjacent to the SOI to better transition future development with City
standards and goals.
Brownfield and Site Reuse Program
“Brownfields” are sites that are, or may be perceived to be, contaminated. Brownfields are vacant
and underutilized properties previously used for industrial or commercial activities that may have
resulted in contamination from petroleum or hazardous substances. Environmental impacts from
historic industrial operations and commercial activities have resulted in vacant and underutilized
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
17
brownfield properties throughout Bakersfield. Brownfields include derelict industrial sites along rail
corridors, former dry cleaners and auto-related businesses in aging commercial corridors, and other
vacant and underutilized commercial and industrial properties. In 2017, the City received two U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency grants that funded the Site Reuse and Revitalization Program (City
of Bakersfield 2020).
The program has identified 23 top priority sites for reuse and have developed guiding principles to
steer the future revitalization of brownfield sites. All infill development should be addressed in the
Land Use Element, but the work accomplished under this program, the identified sites, and the
guiding principles should be highlighted.
Development Trends and Policy Changes
In addition to the above recommendations, a
number of development trends necessitate
alterations to the Land Use Element:
Updating of land use trends presented in
the Introduction and discussion on
existing conditions.
Land Use Plan assumptions should be
updated to reflect the new/updated
long-range planning horizon utilized
throughout the General Plan.
Land use designations may no longer
match what is needed to comply
with/accommodate other elements – for
example, Housing Element needs and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers
may not be able to be accommodated under existing land use designations.
Since publication of the General Plan, the Downtown Bakersfield Vision Plan was approved.
Refinements to the element are recommended to take full advantage of the HSR station at F
Street.
The current General Plan provides for a large number of land use designations which have been
reported as cumbersome by staff. It is likely that a number of land use categories could be
consolidated, leading to a more streamlined list. In order to accommodate this level of change,
the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map would also need to be revised for consistency
purposes.
Bakersfield has seen an increase in medical and research development. A Healthy Communities
and/or Land Use element could contain policies to promote and guide the location of these
uses. This may include a new map of existing medical uses and a discussion of the importance of
these uses and how to strategically locate these uses in the future to best serve the residents of
the City.
Development patterns over the past 10 years have shaped the commercial landscape in
Bakersfield. The Land Use Element should be revised to address the reuse of large parcels, such
as the East Hills Mall, in a manner that compliments current development patterns and complies
with the City’s future land use vision.
Bakersfield has engaged in a number of planning efforts that provide focused strategies for
distinct areas, corridors, and open spaces since the approval of the General Plan. These planning
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
18
initiatives provide a level of detail and focus for specific geographies that are not seen within
the current General Plan. We recommend the creation of ”area plans” unique to each
neighborhood. As discussed further in Section 2.2, the creation of area plans would help the City
to more carefully examine the unique characteristics of each area and provide detailed
recommendations and tailored solutions specific to that section of Bakersfield. If area plans are
prepared, the general plan update land use map should clearly show the boundaries of each
planning district.
Goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element should also be revised to reflect
contemporary planning issues and the long-range vision for development patterns in the City. Goals
should provide general statements of the desired future vision, while policies and implementation
measures should serve to provide an operational roadmap for reaching that vision. We recommend
the following changes:
Goals 2 and 3 call for the accommodation of development that provides for a range of uses and
supports existing development. These goals are vague and do not inform the reader of a long-
term vision for Bakersfield.
Goal 7 establishes a goal for compatible functional and visual relationships amongst buildings.
However, no design standards are established or referenced. Aesthetics are subjective and what
is visually attractive to one person may not be attractive to another. Measurable standards
would reduce potential conflicts.
Many policies could be consolidated to provide for a more concise, streamlined document.
Policies which reference development standards should clearly indicate the location of
architectural design, landscape, and property setback standards.
Only one policy (#51) addresses the presence of California State University, Bakersfield, yet the
higher education institution plays a major role in the City. Additional policies should be
developed to address this resource.
Policies aimed at avoiding the creation of additional “County islands”. Policies currently
discourage the practice but should be refined to regulate avoidance.
Subsequently, policies should be developed to address existing “County islands.” Current
policies encourage annexation but should be more specific.
In order to bring the Land Use Element up to date with current planning approaches, and to comply
with legislative actions that impact the general plan update, we recommend the Comprehensive
Update option. At a minimum, if the Focused Update or Policy Update options are desired, we
recommend revising the Land Use Element to wrap Appendix A into the element itself and expand
the discussion on DUCs. While this could be accomplished through a Focused Update, it is likely that
other elements like the Safety and Circulation Elements, will need to be updated as well to ensure
internal consistency throughout the general plan update. The Comprehensive Update option
provides the opportunity to expand the analysis to DUCs and consider if there are other
opportunities to provide more efficient, high quality service and infrastructure (transportation,
utility, health, etc.), to these areas, or provide for orderly annexation and redevelopment of the
properties. It also provides the opportunity to develop comprehensive policies for these areas.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element of the General Plan lays out a vision for future development of the City’s
connectivity network for motorized and nonmotorized transportation, including City streets,
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
19
highways, public transit systems, and bicycle and pedestrian networks. Overall, many of the issues
that the element’s policies and action items are designed to address are still relevant. These include:
Sprawling and segregated land use patterns that have led to a high dependency on single-
occupancy automobile trips
Traffic congestion caused by new development
Congestion on State Route (SR) 99 and parallel roadways
Lack of transit access to newer developments
Encouraging the use to bike lanes and bike paths
Downtown parking needs
There are also several planning efforts and
developments that necessitate revisions to
significant sections of the element:
Roadway conditions have significantly
changed since the approval of the
Circulation Element. Existing
conditions (e.g., roadway descriptions,
capacities) presented throughout the
element should be updated.
Many planned projects have since
been completed.
The Thomas Roads Improvement
Program (TRIP) is not reflected in the
General Plan. The improvements made through this program, ongoing projects, and future
projects should be identified in the Circulation Element.
Ideas and information from the City’s Bikeways Plan should be incorporated into the element.
Kern County has a thriving logistics and transportation industry, with distribution and fulfillment
centers for major corporations located across Kern County. The County’s centralized location in
California allows for the efficient delivery of goods across the state. The current element does
not address the contemporary logistics network and impacts to City highways and roads.
The passage of SB 1000 requires local governments to address environmental justice in their
transportation network upon the next revision of two or more elements in their General Plan.
An updated element should consider equitable access to all modes of transportation and air
quality related to transportation.
Emerging transportation services such as carshare, rideshare, and bikeshare services should be
addressed and planned.
Goods/freight movement is a growing industry in Bakersfield not currently addressed in the
element. This topic’s relationship to healthy communities and environmental justice should also
be discussed.
Plans, policies, and ideas contained in regional transportation planning documents such as the
Kern County Regional Transportation Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program,
and the Kern County Active Transportation Plan should be incorporated into the Circulation
Element.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
20
All sections of the Circulation Element should be updated to reflect the standard details set
forth in the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual. The Circulation Element can
incorporate by reference the Design Manual to maintain consistency if a Focused Update or
Policy Update is preferred.
The CEQA analysis included in the General Plan Final EIR is outdated. The shift in CEQA
transportation metrics from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles travelled (VMT) could be
accommodated in an updated CEQA document.
Based on our review, we recommend the Comprehensive Update option to bring the Circulation
Element into compliance with this and other legislative requirements. While the Policy Update
option will provide the opportunity to update the Circulation Element with current details from
regional policy documents, only the Comprehensive Update option will address all State legislation.
Government Code Section 65302 (b)(2)(A) requires that upon any substantive revision of the
circulation element, the element should be modified to “plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe
and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the
general plan.” A complete discussion of multi-modal transportation options is not included in the
Circulation Element, and a comprehensive update will be required in order to ensure that this
discussion is thorough across all modes of travel.
Conservation Element
The Conservation Element examines Bakersfield’s policy priorities and actionable goals that
contribute to the conservation of natural resources, including water, wildlife, minerals, soils, and
agriculture.
The Conservation Element is a critical element for the General Plan update, as all the topics covered
in this element are of great importance to the city. However, the element is somewhat suggestive in
its approach and is currently lacking actionable language in many of the goals and policies. Instead
of using words such as “encourage,” “consider,” and “work toward,” the goals and policies should
be revised to use language such as “will,” “require,” and “mandate,” as appropriate, to ensure that
conservation implementation is measurable and to better address CEQA impacts. The element
should be also amended to remove outdated references and include new perspectives and
programs that have gained relevancy since publication of the General Plan.
Additional recommended changes include:
Incorporate language and standards from the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan (MBHCP). It is important to note that the current MBHCP expires in 2022, but that a new
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is being developed to take its place.
Update Species of Concern list, if changed.
Since the General Plan’s publication, the California Office of Sustainability has provided
additional guidance on sustainability and the conservation of natural resources, including
measures from the California Sustainable Policy and Best Practices Manual that should be
incorporated.
Based on our review, we recommend either the Policy Update or the Comprehensive Update option
to update the Conservation Element. While the Focused Update option will provide the opportunity
to bring the Conservation Element in compliance with State legislation it will not address the need
to update the element with more current data from newer conservation plans and planning efforts
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
21
such as the state sustainability program mentioned above. As discussed in Section 1.1, the Focused
Update would be soley focused on addressing State legislative requirements. A Comprehensive
Update provides an opportunity to develop conservation policies that would align with state grant
programs to implement conservation and recreation opportunities in the City.
Open Space Element
Bakersfield’s open spaces provide a wide spectrum of social and environmental benefits. Open
spaces serve the daily needs of the community, promoting the social, cultural, mental, and physical
well-being of the City’s residents. In a broader sense, they promote a more livable community, a
higher quality of life, and lend a sense of place and belonging to the community and its residents.
Open space issues are broad in nature and
often overlap with topics covered in the
Conservation, Safety, and Land Use
Elements. Consistency among these
elements is both important and required.
While consistent with other elements in the
General Plan, the current Open Space
Element is segmented and does not
adequately discuss the cross over
relationships. The element currently
contains a list of broad goals and policies
without a background discussion on the
types of open space in Bakersfield, or maps
and graphics that clearly define these
spaces.
Government Code Section 6550 requires the Open Space Element to contain detailed information
on several categories, including outdoor recreation. This information is not currently provided in the
Open Space Element and is instead presented in the Parks Element, an optional element. We
recommend that the Open Space and Parks elements be consolidated into one element as part of
any future update (regardless of which of three options is pursued) to the General Plan to comply
with this statute, and to avoid any confusion surrounding the definitions of parks and open spaces.
The following changes are also recommended:
The element is not in compliance with Government Code Section 65560(b), which requires an
inventory of open space lands. This inventory should be performed and included in the updated
element.
The open space inventory must include lands that are used for the production of natural
resources.
The open space inventory should identify areas that require special management or regulation
because of hazardous or special conditions.
Agricultural uses should be discussed further, with goals and policies established for this type of
open space.
Open space considerations for public health and tribal resources are not addressed.
Government Code Sections 65560(b)(4) and 65560(b)(6) requires these topic areas to be
discussed, and tribal resource areas should be identified on the open space inventory.
Source: The Bakersfield Californian
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
22
Park facilities listings and details are no longer accurate and should be updated to reflect
current conditions.
Coordinate trail plans with the Circulation Element.
There is no clear link between the policies and implementation programs. For example, the City
requires neighborhood parks at a minimum of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons throughout the plan
area and set 4 acres of recreation and park space for each 1,000 persons (based on the most
recent census) for general regional recreation opportunity as a minimum standard. The Parks
Element does not contain a program that discusses how this standard will be monitored, and it
is unknown if this standard is being met.
Opportunity to provide more details/policies on development and promotion of regional sports
parks and the development of the surrounding areas with visitor serving uses.
Development of a master or area plan for Central Park should be considered.
Based on our review, we recommend the Comprehensive Update option to update the Open Space
Element. At a minimum, the Policy Update option should be chosen given the need for the creation
of a current open space inventory. However, only the Comprehensive Update option will allow for
the Open Space and Parks Elements to be combined into one element, and the development of
current goals and policies and effective implementation programs.
Noise Element
A Noise Element is a required general plan element. It identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise
sources, defines areas of noise impacts, and establishes policies and programs to control and abate
environmental noise to protect citizens from excessive exposure.
The Noise Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan is generally thorough and
addresses the requirements of Government Code Section 65302(f). However, given the age of the
document, and the growth that has occurred in Bakersfield since the General Plan was prepared,
the Noise Element does not include the most accurate and up-to-date information available to
reflect the current noise environment and sources of noise. As part of any future update to the
General Plan, a Citywide noise analysis (including measurements and modeling) should be
performed to gather accurate, current data. The element should be fully updated to present this
current data and implementation measures such as noise evaluation and attenuation standards for
future development projects. The element could be further updated to address noise and health
considerations, per the OPR General Plan Guidelines.
It should be noted that changes to the Land Use and other elements may force changes to the Noise
Element to maintain internal consistency. This typically forces any updates to the Noise Element to
occur relatively late in the long-range planning process, as land use and circulation maps should be
prepared prior to performing the noise analysis. Updating the noise contours for the local airports,
namely Meadows Field and the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, should be evaluated as well.
Based on our review, we recommend either the Policy Update or the Comprehensive Update option
to update the Noise Element. While the Focused Update option will provide the opportunity to
bring the Noise Element in compliance with State legislation, it will not address the need to update
the element with current technical data.
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
23
Safety Element
As defined in the OPR General Plan Guidelines, the goal of a safety element is to “reduce the
potential short and long-term risk of death injuries, property damage, and economic and social
dislocation resulting from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other
hazards” (OPR 2017). Other locally relevant safety issues such as crime, emergency response, or the
transport of hazardous materials, should also be discussed as appropriate.
It should be noted that SB 1035 requires a
jurisdiction’s safety element to be revised to
identify new information on fire hazards,
flood hazards, and climate adaptation and
resiliency strategies applicable to the city and
county that was not available during the
previous revision of the safety element. In
addition, AB 747 requires local governments
on or after Jan 1, 2022 to review and update
the safety element to identify evacuation
routes and their capacity, safety, and viability
under a range of emergency scenarios. These and other pieces of legislation discussed in Appendix A
will force a full update to the City’s Safety Element when other components of the general plan
update are updated.
In addition to these legislative changes, the following changes are also recommended to ensure that
the document is current and reflective of the vision for Bakersfield:
Climate change adaptation and resiliency must now be addressed in jurisdictional safety
elements. We recommend that the City consider preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in
conjunction with a general plan update to address climate change. This can streamline future
development approvals.
Safety Element relies on the Kern County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan
was revised in 2012-2014 and another update effort is currently underway. Any of the three
update options provides an opportunity to amend the Safety Element to match current planning
efforts.
Current Safety Element goals and policies are broad but should be revised to address current
planning topics like climate change resiliency.
Safety Element contains outdated information, such as safety personnel ratios, that should be
updated.
Safety Element references full compliance with the Kern County Hazardous Materials Area Plan.
This document has been updated since the Safety Element was prepared and should be
reexamined to make sure the City complies fully with the plan, and that no potential conflicts
exist. The Safety Element should be updated as required to comply with this regional plan or the
regional plan should be incorporated by reference to maintain future consistency.
Flood control discussion should be updated to ensure adequacy.
Uniform Building Code (UBC) has changed since the Safety Element (and entire General Plan)
was prepared. There may be some portions of the UBC that eliminate the need for certain
policies (since they are covered in the UBC), and/or additional policies contained in the Safety
Element may need to be added to address changes in UBC.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
24
Based on our review, we recommend the Comprehensive Update option to update the Safety
Element. In order to comply with state legislation and OPR’s General Plan Guidelines, the Safety
Element must be overhauled to address climate resiliency. This could potentially be done through
the Policy Update option, although our recommendation for the development of a CAP would likely
only occur during a comprehensive update.
Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element of
the General Plan addresses general utility
services, including general utility service
not provided by the City, water distribution,
sewer and storm drain systems, street
lighting, and solid waste. This element is
not required by state legislation but was
included as an optional element in the
General Plan.
Similar to the Circulation Element, the
Public Services and Facility Element
segments each topic and does not provide
general policies and/or action items on key issues that pertain to public services and facilities in the
city. We recommend the inclusion of an introductory section that includes this information and
general goals and policies. The following are examples of general goals:
Providing the utility capacity necessary to accommodate the city’s future growth
Planning for future water demands in a competitive resource allocation environment
The following additional changes should be addressed, especially as related to changing utility
consumption and development trends:
Public services and facilities required to serve Bakersfield for the next 20 years should be
analyzed and planned.
Water source stability remains a major topic throughout the state of California. Current data
and plans should be discussed.
Utility providers and capacities are no longer accurate and potentially not currently adequate.
Incorporate the work of the Keep Bakersfield Beautiful committee.
The element does not include a discussion on solar or alternative means of energy generation.
Reflecting trends in sustainable development, broad energy efficiency initiatives should be
evaluated thoroughly.
The element does not include a discussion on health and human services. The Element should
be expanded to recognize the role of environmental planning and design in promoting and
planning for public health.
Based on our review, we any of the three options (Focused Update, Policy Update or the
Comprehensive Update) to update the Public Services and Facilities Element. All recommended
changes could be addressed through any of the three options.
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
25
New General Plan Elements
If selected, the Comprehensive Update option provides Bakersfield with the chance to revisit and
revitalize the long-range vision for the community. This also provides the opportunity to reconsider
the organization of the general plan update and potentially add elements that address topics now
important to the community that advance the City’s long-range plans. While some of these issues
could be addressed through a Policy Update, it would be challenging. Thus, it would be easier to
develop these elements under the Comprehensive Update.
In addition, we recommend that the contemporary elements described below should be considered
as stand-alone elements in the General Plan update. These elements could help to further outline
the City’s goals and guide high-quality development in the community. If undertaking the
Comprehensive Update option, the elements can be prepared at the same time, and can easily be
styled to match the look of the other elements to be consistent with the new, comprehensive long-
range vision. We recognize that this is a long list of potential stand-alone elements, so we have also
provided recommendations on topics that could be wrapped into or combined with existing
elements, where appropriate.
Healthy Community/Environmental Justice
Healthy community elements are optional
but have been becoming more popular as
long-range planning attempts to address the
link between community health and public
design. Jurisdictions such as Murrieta, Santa
Clara, Perris, South Gate, and Riverside
County have prepared Healthy Community
elements to address a range of topics such
as public health, physical activity, nutrition,
non-motorized travelers' safety, hazardous
materials and contamination, educational
and economic opportunity, housing quality,
preventive medical care, homelessness, and
violence. Community health is important to
Bakersfield, with City Council goals including
addressing homelessness and enhancing the quality of life in Bakersfield.
As mentioned, environmental justice must be addressed in the general plan update regardless of
whether this update is limited or comprehensive. We recommend that the City address this topic
area by adding an Environmental Justice element. The high volume of information that would be
required based on Bakersfield’s size warrants the preparation of an individual element for this topic.
Presenting environmental justice as a component of community health and wellbeing is appropriate
here. The regulations and guidance regarding environmental justice are continually evolving, and it
is easier to amend a single element than update policies throughout the entire general plan update
to keep information and practices current.
Economic Development
The Economic Development Element would lay out a vision and goals for the future of Bakersfield’s
economy. A healthy and sustainable economy is critical to the future of Bakersfield, and the
Economic Development Element would include policies and actions designed to achieve and sustain
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
26
community goals, such as enhanced resident employment options, reduced commute times, and an
overall higher quality of life through the generation of wealth in the community. A healthy economy
also provides the City with needed revenue for infrastructure improvements, core City services,
safety, and maintenance. A range of factors determine the economic health of a city, including the
number and diversity of businesses, the number and diversity of jobs in relation to the resident
workforce, levels of employment, resident income and wages, and resident and business spending
patterns.
Historic Preservation
The adopted General Plan includes a
placeholder for an Historical Resources
Element that was not included in the final
original General Plan document. This
element would describe the local historic
and cultural resources in Bakersfield and
prescribe goals and policies that seek the
maximum preservation feasible of historic
structures and cultural landmarks. In
addition to honoring and preserving the
valuable historic resources of Bakersfield,
this element would outline the procedures
and processes for identifying, preserving, or
renovating or removing a historic resource,
thereby helping to mitigate future environmental impacts as analyzed under CEQA. Bakersfield
features several historic and cultural resources that are cherished by the community and may be
impacted by future development. Including this element would both reflect that commitment to
history and provide clear guidelines for the management of those resources to accommodate
development.
Sustainability
In the past several years, scientific reports,
legislative requirements, and social demand
have led communities to include
sustainability and resiliency into their
general plans. The Sustainability Element
could include a variety of topics including
the City’s GHG and target emissions goals as
required by SB 32, addressing the impacts of
climate change adaptation as required by SB
379, urban greening or urban agriculture,
energy efficiency, water conservation, or a
number of other related topics. Because the
social meaning of sustainability adapts to
changing conditions and state and federal requirements continue to evolve on an ongoing basis,
including a Sustainability Element would allow the City to concisely address issues pertaining to
Bakersfield in an easy-to-update location. This element would be tailored to the specific needs and
Recommendations for Bakersfield General Plan
27
interests of the community, considering the many economic, social, and political factors interacting
in the City, region, and state.
If the preparation of a separate Sustainability Element is not feasible or desired, a new section on
sustainability efforts and measures could be incorporated into the Conservation Element.
Urban Design
The Urban Design Element gives guidance
on the physical appearance and design of
the City, identifying areas with distinct
neighborhood identities and providing
goals and policies that guide the
preservation and enhancement of the
existing character. The element also
outlines design goals for future
development. While not as in-depth as
design guidelines, this element will
provide the framework should the City
wish to create more detailed
requirements for application review or
can simply serve as visual examples of
desired architecture and neighborhood
character that should be sought and
preserved.
If a stand-alone element is not desired, urban design standards could be established and provided in
the Land Use Element. In this case, we would suggest changing the title of this element to the “Land
Use and Community Design Element” to identify the inclusion of design polices within this element.
Area/Community Plans
Area or community plans can be adopted as part of the general plan update and serve as land use
plans for specific areas of Bakersfield that warrant additional attention and recognition, such as
historical commercial districts. Area plans typically contain a description of the history of the area, a
succinct vision, directed goals, policies, programs, and land use and development standards that are
unique to that particular area, and potentially design guidelines that vary from other areas of the
city. During the staff survey period, Rincon found that many staff members would like to see the
preparation of area/community plans and feel that in depth planning documents for areas such as
the downtown core or Kern River parkway could play a valuable role in long-range planning in
Bakersfield. Incorporation of DUCs could be a part of an area or community plan, tailored to that
area or DUC.
If prepared, area/community plans must be internally consistent with the general plan update. To
facilitate this consistency, the general plan update should provide a policy framework for the
detailed treatment of specific issues in the various area/community plans. To facilitate ease of use,
area/community plans should share a uniform format for land use categories, terminology, and
diagrams, but can otherwise be aesthetically reflective of the area or community that they
represent (OPR 2017).
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
28
2.3 Other Considerations
Climate Action Plan
CAPs are comprehensive plans that help jurisdictions reduce GHG emissions. A CAP is a technical
policy document that identifies major sources of GHG emissions, sets reduction targets, sets forth
measures for achieving targets, and tracks progress towards meeting local reduction goals.
Strategies identified in a CAP can achieve many community climate change goals, including
improving air quality, lowering energy costs, and improving public health. Although CAPs are not
typically part of a general plan, or even a mandatory document, they are one way to satisfy the
state’s requirements for GHG analysis as part of the CEQA analysis required for a general plan
update. Goals and policies contained in a CAP can also be included in updated general plan elements
for consistency and to streamline future development approvals by demonstrating consistency with
the CAP.
General Plan Requirements
29
3 General Plan Requirements
State general plan legislation requires that a general plan must include seven specified elements:
land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, noise, and safety (California Government
Code Section 65302 et seq.).
Circulation. Looks at City’s infrastructure and how it will meet future community needs and
includes roads, water, sewer, stormwater, trails, and communication
Conservation. Preserves and conserves natural resources in Bakersfield
Housing. Contains strategies to supply affordable, high-quality housing options for current and
future residents
Land Use. Focuses on where different uses are located in City limits and the SOI. A use could be
a residential home, office building, or retail shop.
Noise. Ensures a community is protected from excessive noise levels
Open Space. Aims to preserve spaces for recreational and aesthetic enjoyment
Safety. Ensures a community is safe from short- and long-term consequence of disasters
Noise. Ensures a community is protected from excessive noise levels
Housing. Contains strategies to supply affordable, high-quality housing options for current and
future residents
In addition, cities and counties within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
boundaries (including Bakersfield) must also address air quality in their general plans. Air quality is
currently addressed in the Conservation Element of the General Plan. Cities and counties having
identified disadvantaged communities, like Bakersfield, must also address environmental justice in
their general plans either through a separate element or through policies identified as
environmental justice policies. Not every city or county must address these issues in the same
manner, but significant information must be provided. Counties and cities may also address other
topics in the general plan of community interest such as economic development, historical
resources, or community design through the inclusion of optional elements. The General Plan
includes all seven required elements, and two optional elements covering public services and
facilities, and parks.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
30
A general plan is both geographically and topically
comprehensive. A general plan covers the territory
within the City boundaries and areas outside of its
boundaries that relate to its planning activities,
(i.e., the SOI). The area covered by the General Plan
coincides with the Bakersfield Metropolitan Priority
Area of the Kern County General Plan and
Bakersfield’s current SOI.
The general plan update will set out the goals,
policies, and programs in each of these areas that
the City will use as the blueprint for future
development. These goals and policies are then
used by governing bodies such as a City Council and
Planning Commission to base their land use and
other development decisions. All City plans,
zoning, and private development must be
consistent with the diagrams and policies in the
general plan update.
3.1 2017 Update to General Plan Guidelines
In 2017, OPR updated its State General Plan Guidelines. The guidelines are a resource for cities and
counties to use as they undertake updates to general plans. The update focused on making general
plans current and contemporary, covering area needed for the future, creating easy to use
documents, and enhancing implementation through legislative changes, new guidance, policy
recommendations, external links to resource documents, and additional resources.
In addition, the updated guidelines provide recommendations on policy themes that should be
addressed throughout a general plan to address statewide environmental goals. These themes
include:
Climate Change. State goals include reduction of petroleum use by up to 50 percent by 2030,
and an increase of renewable energy to 50 percent by 2030 through the Clean Energy and
Pollution Reduction Act of 2016. California has set GHG emissions reduction requirements in
numerous sectors including land use and transportation planning.
Economics. Decisions regarding land use and circulation have direct and indirect fiscal
implications for local economies, and, in turn, economies of urban and rural centers affect the
health, climate, and equity of communities.
Healthy Communities. In 2012, the Governor issued Executive Order B-19-12 and created the
Governor’s Let’s Get Healthy California Task Force. Chronic disease, social, economic, and
environmental factors influence where people live, work, and play, and affect their health and
wellbeing.
Equitable Opportunities. Incorporating equity into all aspects of planning will ensure that
residents of a city or county benefit from reduced GHG emissions, climate change adaptation
policies, active transportation options, and healthy communities with access to economic
opportunity for all.
Environmental Justice
Identify objectives and policies to reduce the
unique or compounded health risks in
disadvantaged communities by means that
include, but are not limited to, the reduction
of pollution exposure, including the
improvement of air quality, and the
promotion of public facilities, food access,
safe and sanitary homes, and physical
activity. The element also requires
jurisdictions to develop policies that
promote participation in public decision -
making and to prioritize programs that
address the needs of disadvantaged
communities
Gov. Code Sec. 65302(h)(1)(A), (B), (C)
General Plan Requirements
31
3.2 General Plan Legislation
Legislative changes often cause the need for edits and revisions to comprehensive planning
documents, including general plans. Inadequate and outdated general plans that do not address
current legislation can leave a city open to challenges and litigation.
Legislative changes implemented since the 2002 General Plan was approved, and have not been
incorporated into the current document, are outlined in Appendix A of this report. We have not
addressed legislation that just affects Housing Elements since the Housing Element is not a part of
this evaluation.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
32
4 References
Bakersfield, City of. 2015. Municipal Service Review: City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Update
and Amendment
_____. 2016. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
_____. 2019a. Annual Housing Element Progress Report.
_____. 2019b. 2019 Community Profile Bakersfield, CA.
https://bakersfieldcity.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62481.66&BlobID=34201.
(accessed April 13, 2020).
_____..2020. Brownfield & Site Reuse Program.
https://bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/development_services/economic_and_community_de
velopment/brownfield_n_site_reuse_program.htm. (accessed May 15, 2020).
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. General Plan Guidelines.
_____. 2012. LAFCOs, General Plans, and City Annexations.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lafco/items/201205/item_11_supplemental.pdf.
(Accessed June 18, 2020).
KPBS. 2018. SANDAG Settles Climate Change Study Lawsuit.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/apr/09/sandag-settles-climate-change-study-lawsuit/.
(accessed May 21, 2020).
Union City. 2019. Union City General Plan Land Use Element. http://www.uc2040.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/03_2040ucgp_adopted_land-use.pdf. (accessed May 20, 2020)
Appendix A
Recent General Plan Related Legislation
Recent General Plan Related Legislation
A-1
Recent General Plan Related Legislation
Year
Approved Legislative Summary
2013 SB 743 (Steinberg) Ch. 386 – Transit Oriented Infill Projects
This law amends the expedited judicial review process for Governor-certified environmental leadership
projects. Removes aesthetic and parking impacts from category of significant impacts to the environment
for infill projects within a transit-priority area. Creates an exemption for certain infill projects within
transit-priority areas that meet specified conditions. This legislation impacts the Land Use element of the
General Plan.
2014 AB 1739 (Dickenson), SB 1168 and SB 1319 (Pavley 2014 — Sustainable Groundwater Management Act)
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local agencies to manage groundwater
basins in a sustainable manner over a long-term horizon. The Act provides five to seven years for local
agencies to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and to create a Groundwater Sustainability
Plan (GSP). SGMA requires a city or county planning agency, before adopting or substantially amending a
general plan, to review and consider groundwater sustainability plans.
AB 52 (Gatto) Ch. 532 – Native Americans: CEQA
This requires that substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource be
considered as a significant environmental effect for the purpose of CEQA review. Ensures that projects
that do have such an impact include mitigation measures. This legislation impacts the CEQA analysis for
the General Plan document and individual projects in the City.
2015 AB 744 (Chau) Ch. 699 – Planning and Zoning: Density Bonuses
Requires a local government, upon the request of a developer that receives a density bonus, to reduce
the minimum parking requirements for a housing development, if it meets specified criteria. This
legislation impacts the Housing Element, and Land Use Element of the General Plan.
SB 379 (Jackson) Ch. 608 – Safety Element
Requires cities and counties to review and update their general plan safety elements to address climate
adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county. Local officials must act either the
next time they revise their local hazard mitigation plans on or after January 1, 2017, or, if a local agency
has not adopted a hazard mitigation plan, on or before January 1, 2022. This legislation impacts the
Safety Element of the General Plan.
2016 AB 1934 (Santiago) Ch. 747 – Development Bonuses: Mixed-Use Projects
This law creates a development bonus when a commercial developer enters into an agreement for
partnered housing to contribute affordable housing through a joint project or two separate projects
encompassing affordable housing. This legislation impacts the Housing Element and Land Use element of
the General Plan.
AB 2180 (Ting) Ch. 566 – Development Project Review
This law expedites timelines for approval or disapproval by a public agency for certain types of
development projects. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
SB 1000 (Leyva) Ch. 587 – Safety and Environmental Justice
This law requires local governments that have one or more disadvantaged communities to address
environmental justice in their general plan. A disadvantaged community is defined as a low-income area
experiencing disproportionate impacts of environmental pollution and other health hazards.
SB 32 (Pavley) Ch. 249 – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit
This law requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are
reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.
2017 SB 166 (Skinner) Ch. 367 – Residential Density and Affordability
This law amends the No Net Loss Zoning provisions to require that local governments accommodate their
remaining unmet housing needs throughout the housing element planning period for all levels of income.
This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
A-2
Year
Approved Legislative Summary
SB 229 (Wieckowski) Ch. 594 – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
This law makes numerous changes to ADU law, including defining parking requirements, zoning for single-
family dwellings, sizing floorspace, charging for utility services, distinguishing ADU renting and selling, and
permitting the California Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review and comment
on the ordinances. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General
Plan.
SB 540 (Roth) Ch. 369 – Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone
This law authorizes a city or county to establish Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones, which would
focus workforce and affordable housing in areas close to jobs and transit and conform to California’s GHG
laws. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan.
AB 1505 (Bloom) Ch. 376 – Zoning Regulations
This law authorizes a city or county, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, to
establish inclusionary housing ordinances that require the development to include a certain percentage
of affordable housing units. It authorizes HCD to review inclusionary ordinances in specified
circumstances. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan.
AB 73 (Chiu) Ch. 371 – Housing Sustainability District
This law allows a city or county to create a housing sustainability district to complete upfront zoning and
environmental review in order to receive incentive payments for development projects that are
consistent with the district’s ordinance. This legislation Land Use Element and Conservation Element of
the General Plan.
SB 732 (Stern) Ch. 434 – Agricultural Land
This law allows a city or county to develop an agricultural land component of their open-space element,
or a separate agricultural land element, in return for priority consideration for funding provided by the
Department of Conservation (DOC). This legislation impacts the Land Use Element, Conservation Element
and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
2018 AB 1804 (Berman) Ch. 670 – CEQA Exemption: Residential or Mixed-Use Housing Projects
This law provides a statutory exemption from CEQA for infill residential and mixed-use projects occurring
within an unincorporated area of a county. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
SB 1227 (Skinner) Ch. 937 – Density Bonuses
This law requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing
development of five or more units seeks the bonus and agrees to construct a project that will contain at
least 20 percent of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing development, as
specified. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan.
AB 2753 (Friedman) Ch. 2753 – Density Bonus Application
This law requires a city or county to provide a developer, at the time an application for a density bonus is
deemed complete, a determination as to the following: (a) the amount of density bonus for which a
development is eligible; (b) if the applicant requests a parking ratio, the ratio for which the applicant is
eligible; and (c) if the applicant requests incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions in development
standards, whether the applicant provided adequate information for the city, county, or city and county
to make a determination as to those incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions. This legislation
impacts the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
SB 1333 (Wieckowski) Ch. 856 – Zoning Regulations: Charter Cities
This law requires charter cities to ensure that their zoning ordinances, specific plans, and development
agreements are consistent with their plans for affordable housing contained in their housing elements.
This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the General Plan.
Recent General Plan Related Legislation
A-3
Year
Approved Legislative Summary
SB 1035 (Jackson) Ch. 733 – General Plans
This law requires climate adaptation and resiliency information contained in a general plan to be regularly
updated. Specifically, it requires the safety element to be revised to identify new information on fire
hazards, flood hazards, and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city and county
that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. This legislation impacts the
Safety Element of the General Plan.
2019 AB 782 CEQA Exemption: Land Transfers
Creates a CEQA exemption for the acquisition, sale, or other transfer of interest in land, as well as the
granting or acceptance of funds, by a public agency for conservation purposes. This legislation impacts
the Land Use Element, Conservation Element and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
AB 1515 Planning and Zoning: Community Plans Review Under CEQA
Prohibits a court from invalidating a development approval that was granted based on a community plan
that meets specified criteria, if the development was approved or had a complete application prior to the
community plan being challenged in court over the community plan's compliance with CEQA. This
legislation impacts the Land Use Element in the General Plan.
SB 540 CEQA for Permanent Supportive Housing
Creates a CEQA exemption for the conversion of a hotel, motel, apartment hotel, transient occupancy
residential structure, or hostel for transitional and supportive housing. This legislation impacts the Land
Use Element of the General Plan.
SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Prohibits an affected city or county (defined based on Census Bureau definitions of urbanization) from
enacting a development policy or standard that would reduce intensity of land use, impose design review
standards that are not objective, limiting the amount of housing (imposing development moratoriums,
limiting land use approvals or permits, capping housing units, or capping population). Changes in land use
intensity may occur if a reduction in intensity occurs concurrently with an equivalent increase in intensity.
The bill also makes numerous changes to housing permitting. Preliminary applications for housing may be
submitted and must contain specified information. Local governments are prohibited from applying
ordinances to a development after a preliminary application is submitted and cannot hold more than five
hearings on approval of a housing project that complies with objective standards when the preliminary
application is deemed complete. Any determination that a housing project is on an historic site would
need to occur at the time of the preliminary application being deemed complete, and reduced timelines
for approval after completion of an EIR. If a housing development requires demolition of a residential
property, the project may be approved if there is no net loss of affordable housing, the project increases
housing density, existing residents may occupy their units up to six months before the start of
construction, and the developer agrees to provide relocation benefits to occupants of affordable units.
This legislation impacts the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
AB 747 Safety Element
Requires local governments on or after January 1, 2022 to review and update the safety element to
identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios.
This legislation impacts the Safety Element of the General Plan.
AB 1100 EV Parking
Requires local ordinances to count electric vehicle charging stations as parking spaces to meet minimum
parking requirements applied to development projects. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element of
the General Plan.
City of Bakersfield
General Plan Update Strategy and Options Report
A-4
Year
Approved Legislative Summary
AB 1255 Surplus Public Land Inventory
Requires local governments to make a central inventory of surplus and excess public land on or before
December 31 of each year. The inventory must include a description of each parcel and its present use.
This information must be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development
annually, beginning April 1, 2021 and be available upon request without charge. The Department of
Housing and Community Development must provide this information to the Department of General
Services for inclusion in a digitized inventory of all state-owned excess parcels. This legislation impacts the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
AB 1763 Affordable Housing Density Bonuses
Requires a density bonus to apply to development projects that make all units affordable to lower income
households with up to 20 percent of the total units authorized to be available to moderate-income
households. Development projects meeting these criteria may receive four incentives or concessions
under Density Bonus Law, and a height increase of up to three additional stories or 33 feet if the
development is located within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. Density bonuses of up to 80 percent could
be provided and any controls on maximum density would not apply if the development is within .5 mile of
a major transit stop. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
SB 99 Emergency Evacuation Routes
Requires a local government to review and update the safety element during the next revision of the
housing element (on or after January 1, 2020) to identify residential developments in hazard areas that
do not have at least two emergency routes. This legislation impacts the Safety Element of the General
Plan.
AB 600 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
Limits annexation of areas contiguous to disadvantaged communities, unless that community is also
under annexation application. This legislation impacts the Land Use Element and Safety Element of the
General Plan.
AB 1628 Environmental Justice Definition
Revises the definition of "environmental justice" under Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act to include the
meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the
actions specified by the Act, the California Coastal Act, and the Government Code.
AB 38 Wildfire Mitigation/Fire Safety
Requires the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the State Fire Marshall and the Forest
Management Task Force, to review the regional capacity of each county containing very high fire hazard
severity zones to improve forest health and fire resilience. This review must occur by July 1, 2021, and on
or after that date, a seller of property in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone must provide
documentation to a buyer demonstrating compliance with wildfire protection measures. Otherwise, the
buyer and seller must enter into an agreement whereby the buyer will obtain documentation of
compliance. On or after January 1, 2021, a seller of property with a home constructed before January 1,
2020 in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone must provide a disclosure to a buyer containing
information related to fire hardening improvements on the property and a list of features that might
make the home vulnerable to wildfire and flying embers. On or after July 1, 2025, the disclosure must also
include the State Fire Marshall’s list of low-cost retrofits. The Office of Emergency Services and the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection must develop and administer a comprehensive wildfire
mitigation grant program to encourage cost-effective retrofits and structure hardening. This program is
contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature and is repealed on July 1, 2025. This legislation
impacts the Safety Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Documents
Presented At The
Planning & Development
Committee
June 30, 2020
Meeting
Planning and Development Committee –June 30, 2020
City Council Referral
(All Wards)
City Council Committee Meeting
Planning & Development
Ordinance Amendment;
Dissolution of Board of Zoning Adjustment
Background
This report is in response to a referral from Councilman Freeman at
the May 20,2020 City Council directing staff to review the
responsibilities of the Board of Zoning Adjustment so as to
streamline development.
Analysis
Currently,the BZA has discretionary authority per Section 17.64.020 of
the Municipal Code,concerning the following:
A.Modification or waiver of:
1.Automobile parking space or loading requirements on private
property,and
2.The height,yard,and lot area regulations of development,
and
3.Fence,wall and hedge regulations as may be necessary;and
B.Conditional use permits;
C.Wireless facilities right-of-way permits pursuant to Chapter
12.30.
Administrative and Discretionary Role
MUNICIPALITY
Administrative
Permit
Discretionary
Permit CUP Review
Bakersfield DRA BZA CUP BZA
Glendale AUP CUP PC
Modesto None CUP PC
Riverside None MCUP and CUP PC
Stockton AUP CUP PC
Fresno None CUP PC
Ontario AUP CUP PC
Visalia AUP CUP PC
Pasadena None MCUP and CUP PC
Fresno County DRA CUP PC
Kern County None CUP PC
Ordinance Requirements
•Draft ordinance eliminates Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA).
•For administrative review and approval,Director Review and
Approval (DRA)replaces the BZAs authority.
•Modifications would be processed at the DRA level,with referral
and/or appeal to the PC in certain cases.
•The concept of a DRA is already utilized within the use schedules of
the ordinance.
Ordinance Requirements
•For discretionary review and approval,the Planning Commission
replaces BZA authority.
•Where the BZA is referenced within the code as the permitting
agency,such as is found in Title 15,that responsibility will be
assigned to the PC.
•Where the BZA is assigned to hear appeals,that responsibility will be
assigned to the PC,or the DRA,whichever is most appropriate.
Analysis
MUNICIPALITY
Administrative
Permit
Discretionary
Permit CUP Review
Bakersfield DRA CUP PC
Glendale AUP CUP PC
Modesto None CUP PC
Riverside None MCUP and CUP PC
Stockton AUP CUP PC
Fresno None CUP PC
Ontario AUP CUP PC
Visalia AUP CUP PC
Pasadena None MCUP and CUP PC
Fresno County DRA CUP PC
Kern County None CUP PC
Next Steps
Staff received direction to prepare an ordinance which facilitates a
more streamlined approach to providing services to the development
community. Staff recommends:
•Forwarding the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for action.
The Committee may provide alternative direction to staff as it deems
appropriate.
General Plan Update Strategy and Options
Planning Development Committee June 30, 2020
Purpose of the Study
Review the City’s General Plan, focusing on its
content, clarity, and intended purpose
Assess the completeness and ease of use associated
with the City’s General Plan, and where appropriate,
recommend additional provisions or other
improvements
Submit a Summary Report of the consultant’s
findings and recommendations
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 2
Options Studied
1.Focused Update ($85,000 to $175,000)
Update all legally required elements but no parcel-specific land use designation updates
2.Policy Update ($200,000 to $500,000)
Focused Update plus specific, locally important, policy-driven updates
Limited, parcel-specific, existing land use designation updates
3.Comprehensive Update ($650,000 to $3,000,000)
Complete overhaul of all sections and technical information,
Incorporate all new State planning laws and guidance
Large-scale public engagement program, and
Updates all parcel-specific land use designations.
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 3
Consultant Recommendation
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 4
Comprehensive Update
1.Opportunities to Engage the
Community
2.Confirm the Long-Term Vision
for Bakersfield
3.Better Control of City SOI
4.Modern General Plan
5.Most Legally Defensible
Consultant Recommendation
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 5
Current General Plan Assessment
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 6
1.Lacks a unified vision and guiding
principles
2.Does not address current
conditions
3.Joint plan with Kern County
4.Lacks modern elements
5.Does not consider recent general
plan laws
6.Does not address contemporary planning
issues
7.Not user friendly
8.Goals & Policies no longer fit Bakersfield
9.Technical data out of date
10.Missing linkage between Policies and
Implementation programs
11.Lacks CEQA Streamlining opportunities
Current General Plan Assessment
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 7
General Plan Update Options
#Issue Solution Focused
Update
Policy
Update
Comprehensive
Update
1 The General Plan lacks a unified vision and guiding principles.Undertake visioning efforts. Develop a unified vision and guiding principles that
resonate throughout the General Plan update.X
2 The General Plan does not address current conditions.Update all technical analyses for information on current conditions. Update all figures,
tables, and graphics so they reflect current conditions.X X
3 The General Plan is a joint planning document with Kern
County.
Prepare a general plan update that focuses on Bakersfield and prioritizes City issues.
Provide clear direction for development to City standards in the City’s SOI. Eliminate
reliance on the joint planning document.X
4 The General Plan lacks modern elements.
Reexamine topics that are important to Bakersfield. Consider the addition of other
elements to address topics of importance, such as an Economic Development or
Sustainability Element.X
5 The General Plan does not consider recent laws affecting
general plans.
Update all elements for compliance with state, regional, and local legislation.X X X
6 The General Plan does not address contemporary planning
issues.
Examine contemporary planning issues such as healthy communities/public health,
economic development, GHG emissions reduction, alternative forms of energy, and
sustainability. Develop goals and policies relative to these topics and/or consider the
inclusion of new elements to address.
X
7 Goals and policies contained in the General Plan no longer fit
Bakersfield.
Reexamine existing goals and policies. Revise where appropriate and/or develop new
policies to address the City’s long-term vision.X X
8 The General Plan is not user friendly.
Create an aesthetically pleasing and easy to use document. Ensure that the document
is searchable and organized with digital bookmarks and other newer electronic
document technologies.
X X
9 Technical data and appendices are out of date.Update all technical analyses for information on current conditions. Update all figures,
tables, and graphics so they reflect current conditions.X X
10 There is no link between policies and implementation
programs.
Reexamine policies and implementing programs. Revise where appropriate and/or
develop new programs to carry out the policies that address the City’s long-term
vision.X
11 The General Plan EIR does not provide for development
streamlining.
Prepare a new EIR that addresses all current issue areas, as outlined by Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines.X X X
Issues Addressed 2 6 11
General Recommendations
Data Updates
Graphic Design and Document
Layout
Vision and Guiding Principles
Goal, Policy, and Implementation
Program Development
Legislative Compliance
CEQA Streamlining
Data Layout
Legislative
Compliance CEQA
PolicesGoals
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 8
Implementation
General Recommendations
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 9
General Plan Update Options
Issue Solution Focused Update Policy Update Comprehensive Update
Data Updates Update all technical data and incorporate throughout the General
Plan with maps, tables, and supporting text.X X
Graphic Design and
Document Layout
Migrate the General Plan to a page layout program; utilize a more
streamlined, graphic-focused layout and easy to follow format. X X
Vision and Guiding
Principles
Establish a strong, clear vision statement. Develop guiding
principles to establish broad performance benchmarks.X
Goal, Policy and
Implementation Program
Development
Update all goals and policies to consider contemporary planning
issues and new technological considerations. Update or develop
implementation programs to provide for execution of goals and
policies.X
Legislative Compliance Update all elements for compliance with State, regional, and local
legislation.X X X
CEQA Streamlining Prepare a new EIR that addresses all current issue areas, as
outlined by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.X X X
Issues Addressed 2 4 6
Recommendations for Individual Elements
Mandatory Elements
Land Use Element
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
SOI and Annexation Coordination
Circulation Element
Update to reflect new construction/TRIP
Complete Streets
Conservation Element
New Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
Open Space Element
Open space Inventory
Implementation Program
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 10
Recommendations for Individual Elements
New General Plan Elements
Healthy Community/Environmental
Justice Element
Integrated into other elements
Economic Development Element
Historic Preservation Element
Sustainability Element
Urban Design
Area/Community Plans
7/14/2020 General Plan Update Strategy and Options 11
Discussion / Q&A
Next Steps
City Manager’s Office
1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
661‐326‐3751 FAX: 661‐324‐1850
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Date: June 30, 2020
To: Planning and Development Committee
From: Jacqui Kitchen, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Committee Meeting of June 30, 2020
Public Comments
A total of three emails received providing public comments for items related to the Planning and
Development Committee meeting.
Agenda Item 4A – 2 comments
Agenda Item 5A – 2 comments
Michelle Cruz
From:City_Clerk
Sent:Monday, June 29, 2020 2:16 PM
To:Pilar Avalos; Michelle Cruz
Subject:FW: Planning & Development Agenda Item 4. A.
Categories:Committees
FYI - Comments below from Renee Nelson, another one coming.
-----Original Message-----
From: renee nelson <rdnelson12@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 1:08 PM
To: City_Clerk <City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us>
Cc: renee nelson <rdnelson12@gmail.com>
Subject: Planning & Development Agenda Item 4. A.
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click!
Thank you for accepting electronic submissions for comments for the Planning &
Development Committee meeting on 6.30.2020. Please do me the courtesy of
acknowledging receipt of this email.
My comments pertain to Agenda Item 4.A. New Business ~ Rezoning Policies
Support R-1 Zoning for Backyard hens
Dear Councilmen Freeman, Smith & Rivera,
I am writing in support of expanding the existing zoning ordinance to allow for hens in the R-1
zone. Although I’m not sure this is the topic at hand I did want to convey support at the
committee hearing on Tuesday, June 30, 2020.
One issue that may come up will be people who currently live in neighborhoods governed
by Home Owner’s Associations (HOA) and hen ownership will obviously be constrained by
the By-laws of the said association and the ordinance will not change their conditions of use.
That will be up to the members themselves to change and ratify their by-laws if they so
choose.
I hope you will support this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and include hens in the R-1
zone! Thank you for your consideration on this issue!
Sincerely,
Renee Donato Nelson
12430 Backdrop Court
Bakersfield, California 93306
Find your Light & Love
Sent from my iPhone
Michelle Cruz
From:City_Clerk
Sent:Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:24 AM
To:Pilar Avalos; Michelle Cruz
Subject:FW: June 30, 2020 CC Planning & Development Committee Meeting
Public comments for the Planning and Development meeting can be found below. This comment
was stuck in the spam folder and I released it this morning.
Julie Drimakis, CPMC, CMC | City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
email: jdrimakis@bakersfieldcity.us
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us
phone: 661-326-3073
From: David Dmohowski <dave.d@kernhomebuilders.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 12:10 PM
To: City_Clerk <City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us>
Subject: June 30, 2020 CC Planning & Development Committee Meeting
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click!
The Home Builders Association of Kern County would like to submit comments on the following agenda items:
4. Rezoning Policies. The proposed Municipal Code amendments appear to us to be an appropriate way to
cover the functions now performed by the BZA. We are happy to see that this approach preserves over-the-
counter or administrative reviews for minor modifications and findings of compliance. Good background
research conducted by staff on these issues.
5. General Plan Update. We appreciate the very thorough update on the status of the General Plan Update
program. Point of clarification--a July 13, 2020 Planning Commission meeting on this subject is cited in the
staff report. July 13 is a Monday. Is that the correct date?
Your consultants strategy report was well presented, although we find it ironic that they would cite a
community vision example from the hideously anti-housing, exclusionary Bay Area.
Please keep us informed as to plans for GPA Update community outreach and stakeholder group
meetings. Thanks.
The HBA of Kern County looks forward to the time when we can participate more directly with your
committee. As we have said previously, our Association is grateful for the high level of service afforded to our
industry by your staff during this Covid-19 emergency.
Best regards,
Dave Dmohowski
Executive Officer
Home Builders Association of Kern County
661.510.8311
Michelle Cruz
From:City_Clerk
Sent:Monday, June 29, 2020 2:58 PM
To:Michelle Cruz; Pilar Avalos
Subject:FW: Planning & Development committee Item 5.A.
Categories:Committees
Here is another one.
From: renee nelson <rdnelson12@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:49 PM
To: City_Clerk <City_Clerk@bakersfieldcity.us>
Cc: renee nelson <rdnelson12@gmail.com>
Subject: Planning & Development committee Item 5.A.
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Bakersfield. Think before you click!
Thank you for accepting electronic submissions for comments for the Planning & Development Committee
meeting. Please do me the courtesy of acknowledging receipt of this email.
My comments pertain to Agenda Item 5.A. Deferred Business
General Plan update
Dear Councilmen Freeman, Smith & Rivera,
I am writing to request inclusion within the City of Bakersfield’s update to the General Plan to include, but not
be limited to, the following areas, in addition to other mandated sections.
1. Climate Action Plan
2. Transportation Element to include multi-modal scenarios for both the downtown area and outlying sections of
the city. Additionally, both civic and privately operated electric charging stations should be addressed at the
policy level.
3. Air Quality mitigation measures to include, but not be limited to, on site mitigation as a best practice. Support
for public entity “ clean” fleets.
4. Water conservation and ground water banking as ongoing efforts.
5. Environmental Justice using community planning for inclusion and access to services.
6. Stated coordination with the County of Kern for developments within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan area. This should include staff comments as pertinent to development projects within the boundaries of the
sphere of influence regardless to status of property via annexation or otherwise.
7. Any development agreements shall be included with DEIR’s, including, but not limited to, agreements with
the city or Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreements ( VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District.
Thank you for your consideration of this issues! If you could be so kind to forward to me any staff reports and
later, the minutes prepared for this item, I would be grateful, as I will not be attending in person due to Covid19
concerns! Also, perhaps you could hold the meeting next time in the council chambers and broadcast them?
Sincerely,
Renee Donato Nelson
12430 Backdrop Ct
Bakersfield, California 93306
Find your Light & Love
Sent from my iPhone