HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/2007 •
B A K E R S F I E L D
Staff: Rhonda Smiley
Zack Scrivner, Chair
Harold Hanson
Ken Weir
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
of the City Council -City of Bakersfield
Thursday, June 14, 2007
1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor -City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
A G E N D A
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT MAY 3, 2007 MINUTES
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding the proposed Joint City/County Open Space
Advisory Committee -Tandy/Smiley
B. Discussion regarding the Joint Emergency Transportation Task Force -
Tandy
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
S:\Council Committees\2007\07 PlanningNtDevelopmentUune 7 & 14\07 June 14 agenda.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
St :Rhonda Sm y
For: Alan Tandy, City Manager
MINUTES
Zack Scrivner, Chair
Harold Hanson
Ken Weir
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 3, 2007 - 1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room -Suite 201
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA
The meeting was called to order at 1:00:38 PM
1. ROLL CALL
Committee members present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner; Chair
Councilmembers Harold Hanson and Ken Weir
Staff present: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W.
Stinson; Assistant City Manager Christine Butterfield; Management Assistant
Rick Kirkwood; Public Information Officer Rhonda Smiley; City Attorney Virginia
Gennaro; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Stan
Grady; Associate Attorney Michael Richards; Planning Director Jim Movius;
Building Director Phil Burns; Civil Engineer Ted Wright
Others present: Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Goup; Steven Teglia,
Bakersfield Chamber; Cassie Daniel, Homebuilders Association; Chris Clark,
TRIP /Parsons; Dave Price, Kern County Resource Management Agency; Maria
Aleman, Auto Source America; Jerry Armstrong, City Auto Group, Inc.; Bart
Vielrano, City Auto Group Inc.; Juan Castillas, NextCar USA; Roger McIntosh,
McIntosh & Associates; Lyn Espericueta, California Auto SCS; Scott Blunck,
Castle & Cooke; Kevin Barton, Young Wooldridge; Various members of the
media
2. ADOPT APRIL 5, 2007 MINUTES 1:01:15 PM
Adopted as submitted.
Planning and Development Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 2
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding Highway Funding Proposal -Tandy / Rojas
1:01:50 PM
City Manager Alan Tandy provided an overview of nine staff
recommended action items for City transportation plans, funds, and
construction activity. A copy of the memorandum to Mayor and Council
dated April 5, 2007 and slide show presentation was provided.
Mr. Tandy made several comments regarding Kern County's proposal and
asked that the City Council respond with an action orientation and tangible
plan.
Committee member Harold Hanson asked that the County Ad Hoc Roads
Committee appointments be part of the May 9, 2007 agenda.
Committee Chair Zack Scrivner requested comments from guest speakers
regarding highway dedication and traffic impact fees. Roger McIntosh of
McIntosh & Associates advised that without seeing the program or
proposal or having an understanding of the model, he is unable to address
the issue. However, he would like to see the sales tax referendum be
brought to the February 2008 ballot.
Committee Chair Scrivner asked for staff recommendations. Alan Tandy
asked that the Highway Funding Plan be brought to City Council for action
and then staff implementation.
1:32:59 PM
Motion to forward action plan to City Council for adoption passed
unanimously by vote:
Ayes: Scrivner, Hanson, Weir
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Discussion regarding electronic message signs -Grady / Gennaro
1:33:29 PM
Director of Development Services Stan Grady advised that staff met with
the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce to discuss the electronic message
Planning and Development Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 3
signs used in the City. Steven Teglia of the Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce presented the following comments regarding electronic
message signs:
• That any ordinance, current or amended, allows for the
advancement of technology;
• The Chamber agrees in regulating the use of video signs;
• Requests that the City establish some type of contractual or
permit agreement with businesses identifying penalties for usage
of electronic signs;
• The Chamber is not supportive of completely limiting the use of
all electronic signs.
Stan Grady indicated that if electronic signs are allowed, more discussion
will be required. Development Services will conduct additional research to
explore more options.
Committee member Harold Hanson expressed concerns putting in place
an ordinance that allows the use of electronic signs by adult entertainment
businesses and the conflicts the City may encounter in reference to
freedom of speech. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained that the
current ordinance does not allow animated signs and digital billboards.
City Attorney Gennaro recommends enforcement of the current ordinance
and later have staff modify the ordinance to allow new technology.
Ginny Gennaro shared an article from the Washington Post relating to
digital billboards affordability to businesses and the struggles
municipalities have regulating the billboards. The article also addressed a
study by the Federal Government regarding the hazards animated
billboards cause the driving public.
The Development Services staff will work with the Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce to get additional information and community feedback.
Committee Chair Scriver requested this discussion be deferred to the next
scheduled meeting.
B. Discussion regarding temporary signs -Grady /Gennaro 1:44:42 PM
Development Services Director Stan Grady gave a slide show
presentation regarding issues relating to correction notices given to
businesses for signs along major roadways and the auto mall area that
are not in compliance with the current sign ordinance. Under the current
sign ordinance the following signs are prohibited:
Planning and Development Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 4
• Banners, flags, pennants and balloons, except as permitted;
• Permanent for sale signs;
• Portable signs;
• Vehicle signs
One option for businesses is use of the Special Event Signs Process. The
process provides a means of publicizing events such as grand openings
carnivals, parades, charitable events, community holiday activities and
other related events. The Special Event Signs are limited per business to
forty-five days per calendar year in any combination of durations provided
the number of special events does not exceed five per calendar year.
However, no single event may exceed a duration of fifteen consecutive
days.
The Bakersfield Auto Mall has a special sign designation in the sign
ordinance which relates to the specific signs permitted in that area. Bart
Nelson of City Auto Group asked the Committee to give the same
consideration to smaller auto groups. Stan Grady clarified that the
Bakersfield Auto Mall is under the same criteria as the City Auto Group
and were also cited for non-compliance. Mr. Grady offered to provide a
comparison between the two businesses in regards to issues of public
rig ht-of-way.
Lynn Espericueta with California Auto Center asked if there is any correct
way to use the banners on their lot. Staff advised that businesses are
allowed special event permits for banners in accordance with the Special
Event Signs Process.
Committee Chair Scrivner would like more discussion between staff and
local businesses that were cited. Jerry Armstrong of the City Auto Group,
Inc. stated that removing the banners gave their business the appearance
of being vacant and cut their business in half.
Committee member Ken Weir would like the Chamber of Commerce to
assist with the discussion between staff and local businesses regarding
temporary signs. Committee chair Scrivner suggested staff and the
Chamber of Commerce prepare a press release or website
announcement.
This item will be deferred to a future meeting.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None
Planning and Development Committee
May 3, 2007
Page 5
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:03:12 PM
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members
APPROVED 6/14/07
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
June 6, 2007
TO: Q Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: `Rho da Sm' ,Public Information Officer
SUBJECT: Open Space Advisory Committee
Council Referral #001759
Councilmember Scrivner referred to the Planning and Development .Committee a
request from Kern County for the City to commen# on a proposal to create an Open
Space Advisory Committee and for the City's participation on the advisory committee.
The Board of Supervisors made a referral to the County .Planning Department on March
13, 2007 to evaluate the formation of a Metropolitan Bakersfield Open Space Advisory
Committee. r
According to the attached correspondence, dated April 30, 2007, from. Kern County
Planning Director, Ted James, to City of Bakersfield Development Services Director,
Stanley Grady, "the committee's purpose would be to explore opportunities for acquiring
open space resources for the benefit of the community". Per the County's proposal, the
committee would include a representative of the Board of Supervisors, Bakersfield City
Council, special interest groups,. industry groups, and City and County Parks and
Planning Department staff..
Staff has been asked to report on the processes already in place to identify and
implement open space. The- Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan is the principal
guideline used by the City and the County; Chapter IV is entirely devoted to the Open
Space Element. Attached for your reference, it identifies issues and goals, one of which
is the acquisition of new lands for open. space. Further, it specifically sets forth the
policies by which the goals are to be achieved and an implementation program to be
carried out by the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern.
Referral #1759 -Proposal for Open Space Advisory Committee
June 6, 2007
Page 2
Existing General Plan policies include the following:
- preservation of open space in the northeast area;
- encourage. depleted resource extraction, reuse of abandoned landfill sites, and
groundwater recharge lands for recreation and open space purposes;
- creation of master plan for greenbelts, landscape corridors and water elements;
- encourage public neighborhood. parks;
- establish appropriate links for trails and parks (with emphasis on the northeast
area).
As you are aware, the City and County are currently working together to update the
General Plan. In cooperation with .the Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020 Committee, four
community workshops were scheduled in May to solicit public input. Vision 2020 is also
sponsoring acommunity-wide survey as another means of gathering feedback. As the
process moves forward, there will be additional opportunities for the community to voice
their opinions on all aspects of the General Plan, including parks, trails and open space
issues.
It would appear then, that the General Plan update .process now underway covers the
issues of public input and resultant polices and procedures. If another duplicative and
parallel process is created which results in different conclusions, it is questionable as to
what the new additional process. will actually accomplish. In the end, the General Plan
will continue to be the primary guideline relied upon by the City and the County.
Separately, but related, the City is also working on an update of the Recreation and
Parks Master Plan that will include current and future needs assessments for park land.
Public input was obtained through meetings with local organizations, a citywide phone
survey, and two community workshops to identify the type of park and recreational
amenities wanted and utilized by area residents. Those results will be incorporated into
the updated Recreation and Parks.. Master Plan and .presented to the Community
Services Committee, then to the City Council
The periodic update of the Metropolitan General Plan and the Recreation and Parks
Master Plan both provide opportunities-for public participation and recommendations for
open space and park needs. However, even without those processes taking place, the
City already has a demonstrated track record in support of long range conservation and
preservation of land for' open space, as noted by the following land designations that
have been or will be put into. place:
• Adopted the Metropolitan Habitat Conservation Plan .for habitat preservation,
including the purchase of lands both inside and outside the metro area for habitat
preservation and open space;this has a large budget and it's own legal process
for identifying and acquiring open space;
• Approval of the Bakersfield Cactus Preserve (northeast);
• Adopted the Kern River Plan for parks, trails and open space along the Kern
River,
Referral #1759 -Proposal for Open Space Advisory Committee
June 6, 2007
Page 3
• Adopted parks, trails and open space plans for Riverlakes Ranch, the Polo
Grounds, Western Rosed-ale, and Rosedale Ranch (northwest) with linkages to
the Kern River; will be adding Stockdale Ranch recreation/open space plan;
• Adopted the Northeast Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan with linkages to the
Kern River;
• Approved recreation/open space plans with linkages to the Kern River and
Northeast Plan in the northeast for Watermark (1 square mile) and Riverview (1
square mile); will be adding recreation/open space plan from proposed Rio Bravo
Ranch (3 square miles) and Canyons (1.5 square miles);
• Environmental review currently underway for the new Sports Village at Ashe
Road and Taft Highway;
• Approved. recreation/open space plans with linkages to the Kern River and new
Sports Village in the southwest for McAlister Ranch (3 square miles), and Old
River Ranch (2.5 square miles); will be adding recreationlopen space plans from
West Ming (3.5 square miles), Flying 7 (4 square miles), and Gateway (6 square
miles).
All of the open space and recreational projects listed above were, or will be,
successfully accomplished through a cooperative effort with private citizens, developers,
civic organizations and other public agencies, including Kern County and various State
and Federal agencies. The City and the County, using the guidelines. of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, have effective processes in place that allow and
encourage participation by all interested parties with regard to designation of open
space areas for our community.
###
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TED JAMES, AICP, Director
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323
Phone: (661) 862-8600
FAX: (661) 862-5601 TTY Ralay 1-800-735-2828
E-Mall: planninpl~co.kern.ca.us
Wab Addrsss: www.co.kern.ca.us/p tanning
April 30, 2007
Mr. Stan Grady, Development Services Director
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DAVlD PRICE lll, RMA DIRECTOR
Community 8 Economic Development Department
Engineering & Survey Services Department
Environmental Health Servius Department
Planning Department
Roads Department
(;%~
~lY t) 3 200) `: ..
~~~~1~~~~21"E~RSF lD
lF
~P,gRrMFNr
RE: Board of Supervisors Referral to Consider the Creation of a Metropolitan
Bakersfield Open Space Advisory Committee
Dear Stan:
On March 13, 2007, at the request of Supervisor Maggard, the Board of Supervisors made a
referral to the Planning Department to investigate the potential of creating a Metropolitan
Bakersfield Open Space Advisory Committee. Supervisor Maggard envisions that the
committee's purpose would be to explore opportunities for acquiring open space resources for the
benefit of the community.
As proposed, the committee would consist of a representative of the Board of Supervisors,
Bakersfield City Council, special interest groups, industry groups as well as Parks and Planning
Department staffs from the City and County. Supervisor Maggard's March 13, 2007 letter to the
Board of Supervisors requesting the formation of the Open Space Committee is attached for your
information.
"1'he :Planning Department would appreciate receiving comments from the City of Bakersfield
related to its participation on an open space committee. It is envisioned that such a committee
would function in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors and City Council in making
recommendations on identifying open space resources, prioritizing acquisitions and making
recommendations for acquisitions of open space property. The Planning Department is currently
researching what other communities have done to proactively address the conservation of open
space areas and will he preparing a report to the Board of Supervisors in the upcoming weeks.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
TED J ME ,AICP, Director
Kern unt Planning Department
TJ:jb
Attachment
is\adm\ted\Stan Grady open space.lt
CHAPTER VI -OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
State planning law requires jurisdictions to prepare a plan for the long range conservation and
preservation of open space (Government Code Section 65302(e)). As defined by the State,
open space should include lands for:
(a) the preservation of natural resources;
(b) the managed production of resources;
(c) outdoor recreation; and
(d) public health and safety (Government Code Section 65560(b)).
Under this broad definition, open space is encompassed in several General Plan elements
including Land Use, Conservation, Parks and Safety. To minimize repetition this Open Space
Element will deal with those open space amenities not covered in these other elements.
A. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ISSUES
There are approximately 100,237 acres of agriculture/open space in the planning area (see
graph on page II-1 of the Land Use Element), representing over 57.76 percent of the total land
use acreage. The majority of this open space is devoted to agricultural uses, consisting of both
row and tree crops, and to large tracts of land devoted to oil explorations. Non-farm and non-oil
open space occurs predominately in the floodplain areas along the Kern River, with large
floodplain areas occurring west of Allen Road; in the steeper hillside areas east of Comanche
Drive; and along Alfred Harrell Highway.
The Kern River Plan Element establishes policies aimed at protecting what is thought of as the
area's greatest natural resource, the Kern River. Due to both the size and extent of the Kern
River within the study area, the river offers the highest potential for the provision of regional
open space opportunities.
OPEN SPACE ISSUES
The planning area lacks a cohesive system of open space amenities, with many of the area's
major amenities including the Kern River, bluffs and foothills being under-utilized as open space
resources.
The aesthetic value of open space areas and the impact of development on public viewsheds
should be considered.
Cut-and-fill grading techniques employed to accommodate development alter natural
topography and ridgelines.
VI-1
CHAPTER VI -OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
GOALS AND POLICIES
The following presents the goals and policies for open space in the planning area.
Implementing programs are contained in the following subsection. At the end of each policy is
listed in parenthesis a code beginning with the letter "I" followed by a number. This code refers
to the pertinent implementing program.
GOALS
1. Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the planning
area.
2. Create an integrated system of open space amenities in the planning area.
3. Locate and site development to minimize the disruption of open space areas.
4. Acquire new lands for open space.
5. Create 20 major tree-covered corridors that connect to and include the Kern
River Parkway, safe bikepaths and GET bus routes.
6. Create a greenbelt corridor along the Kern River with increased recreational
opportunities.
POLICIES
Goals will be achieved through the following policies which set more specific directions and
guide actions.
Promote the establishment, maintenance and protection of the planning area's
open space resources, including the following (I-1) (I-2) (I-3):
a) Conservation of natural resources (refer to Chapter II-Land Use, Chapter
V-Conservation, and Chapter XII Kern River Plan Element).
Kern River corridor
Management of hillsides
b) Managed production of resources
4griculture (refer to Chapter V-Conservation/Soils and Agriculture)
Oil production (refer to Chapter V-Conservation/Mineral
Resources)
VI-2
CHAPTER VI -OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
c) Outdoor recreation
Parks (refer to Chapter XI-Parks)
Kern River corridor (refer to Chapter II-Land Use, Chapter V-
Conservation, and Chapter XII-Kern River Plan Element)
d) Public health and safety
Hazard avoidance (refer to Chapter VI I I-Safety)
2. Development of ridge lines within the planning area should consider natural
topographic constraints (I-2).
3. Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be complementary to the
natural topography (I-2).
4. Require the use of grading techniques in hillside areas that preserve the form of
natural topography and ridge lines (I-2).
5. Development location and siting should be sensitive to its relationship to the Kern
River (I-3).
6. Development on or adjacent to bluff areas should complement the natural
topographic integrity of such areas (I-2).
7. Consider the use of groundwater recharge lands for recreation, habitat and
alternate resource uses (I-4).
8. Consider reuse of abandoned landfill areas for recreational and open space
purposes where it can be shown that the landfill does not present a health hazard
(I-5).
9. Encourage depleted resource extraction sites to be restored as alternative open
space or developed with uses compatible with those adjacent (I-5).
10. Create a master plan for greater Bakersfield for greenbelts, water elements and
landscape corridors. (I-6)
11. Create an Ad Hoc Tree Advisory Committee to develop a tree ordinance for
greater Bakersfield that ensures a sustainable urban forrest. (I-6)
12. The City of Bakersfield will pursue preservation of open space within the
Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) (bubble map, on file at the
City of Bakersfield Planning Department). (I-7)
VI-3
CHAPTER VI -OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
13. The intended usage of the NBOSA includes open space, parks, trails and other
habitat and recreational uses. (I-7) (I-8)
14. Develop a land use and trails plan (Specific Plan) for the NBOSA. (I-8)
15. Encourage the establishment of public neighborhood parks in or adjacent to the
NBOSA as subdivisions are approved. (I-8)
16. Establish linkages between NBOSA and adopted trail systems. (I-8) (I-9)
17. Support the establishment of an area for off road vehicle use. Potential areas
include, but are not limited to, property adjacent to the Bena land fill, an area
adjacent to Round Mountain Road, and areas adjacent to Breckenridge Road,
east of Comanche Road. (I-11)
18. Establish open space/trail linkages from the NBOSA to public and quasi public
facilities such as CALM, Hart Park, soccer park, Lake Ming and the Kern River
Corridor. (I-7) (I-8)
19. In the review of site specific development plans, encourage access from
proposed development adjacent to the NBOSA to provide public access to open
space and trails. (I-9)
20. Where possible, and with the cooperation of wildlife agencies, utilize Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) resources to expand/create
habitat preserves with the NBOSA. (I-7) (I-10)
IMPLEMENTATION
The following are programs to be carried out by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern to
implement the goals and policies of the Open Space. Element. This listing is not to limit the
scope of implementation of this plan. State law requires that planning agencies recommend
various methods of implementation of the general plan as part of their on-going duties.
Implement the programs identified in the Land Use, Parks, Soils and Geology,
and Hazards sections of the General Plan.
2. Hillside Management Ordinance for the City of Bakersfield regulates
development in areas of excessive slope in northeast Bakersfield. Kern County's
existing ordinance will be augmented as necessary.
3. Implement Kern River Plan Element policies regarding development sensitivity to
the river resource.
VI-4
CHAPTER VI -OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
4. Agencies involved in groundwater recharge projects should coordinate as
appropriate to achieve multiple use of recharge areas where feasible.
5. Where appropriate, rezone abandoned landfill areas and resource extraction
sites to allow open space or development uses complementary of and
compatible with surrounding uses.
6. Develop and adopt plans and ordinances as appropriate to greenbelts, water
elements, landscape corridors and urban forest policies.
7. With cooperation of private landowners, utilize all resources and programs to
expand/create an open space amenity within the NBOSA area. Resources
include but are not limited to: Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP) resources; public and private grants; land exchanges with private and
public landowners; land in-lieu program; development right transfers;
conservation easements; dedication of open space within NBOSA for impact fee
reduction; and community fund-raising.
8. Pursue the:
a. Adoption of a land use plan (Specific Plan) depicting various recreational,
open space parks, trails, parking lots, etc.
b. Adoption of trail system for the NBOSA which links the project area
together.
c. Creation of neighborhood parks adjacent to the NBOSA.
9. Review development plans for the purpose of providing access or allowing
linkages to the NBOSA.
10. Work with Federal and State wildlife agencies, through the MBHCP Trust Group,
to enlarge existing preserve areas and provide for limited trail use and
interpretive programs within preserve areas so long as the integrity of the
preserve can be protected.
11. Work with ORV users, Kern County, State and Federal agencies to assist in
identifying financial resources and property which could be made available for
ORV use.
VI-5
Kern County Administrative Office
County Administrative Center
.115 Truxtun Avenue, Fifth Floor • Bakersfield, CA 93301-4639
Telephone 661-868-3198 • FAX 661-868-3190 • TTY Relay 800-735-2929
RONALD M.ERREA
County Administrative Officer
REVISED #27 PM
Apri124, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Administrative Center
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RESPONSE TO BOARD REFERRAL ON FORMATION OF EMERGENCY
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING TASK FORCE
FiscalImpact: None
On March 27, 2007, your Board considered the matter of forming an Emergency Transportation Funding Task
Force and requested that the County Administrative Office report back to the Board with recommend options
concerning the above referenced Task Force involving the City of Bakersfield and the County. Planning and
Roads department and Resource Management Agency staff met on this issue to discuss the pros and cons of
forming such a task force and in consultation with the County Administrative Office have formulated the
following recommendations for Task Force composition. At the time of agenda posting, the City of
Bakersfield had not yet commented on the task force proposal.
Should the Board choose to move forward with the formation of the group, the following proposes an outline
of the formation, purpose, functions, membership and other factors related to a task force.
FORMATION
Pros:
1. Formalization of a task force could serve to better focus interested parties' attention to the issue,
definitively evaluate data to achieve broad and shared understanding of the facts, and bring better
directed effort to bear to find solutions.
2. A task force may help to establish additional momentum to address regional transportation issues so
that these issues are given and maintain a high priority in the minds of participants and does not suffer
from becoming a "lower priority".
3. If participants are active and representative of their constituent groups, aready-made, cross section of
the community will be mobilized to move to the next level and seek support for broad based solutions
such as a local safe roads transportation measure.
Board of Supervisors
Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force
Apri124, 2007
Page 2
Cons:
1. Misunderstanding about the tole of a task force could result in the creation of "another layer" of
review and could create confusion on the part of the public and delay progress in addressing the
fundamental issues.
2. The larger the cross-section of participants in order to be inclusive, the greater the problem of inertia
due to diversity of viewpoints unless there is an overriding desire for reaching solutions.
3. Such high profile exposure to our transportation funding deficiencies prior to the development of
feasible solutions may result in attracting litigation.
Recognizing that there is general support from the Board of Supervisors for directed and focused effort to
address this situation as quickly as possible, the formation of a task force would appear to be the preferred
alternative. Efforts should be undertaken to address the potential impediments to success that are noted above.
PURPOSE
The proposed purpose of the Task Force would be: "To deliver a plan that identifies and updates the
necessary metropolitan Bakersf eld transportation projects required to meet the needs of current and projected
new development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area. "
The Purpose would be achieved through the following scope of work:
1. Identify the current and future project list required to meet the level of service standard
2. Identify current and future funding sources during the same time frame as # 1 above
3. Identify any funding gaps
4. Identify future funding sources to address shortfalls
S. Identify other traffic mitigating solutions
6. Identify project cost cutting options, such as downscaling, redesign, or rerouting
7. Identify strategies to initiate immediate construction of projects
PARTICIPANTS
It is proposed that there be three categories of participants in the process-Task Force members, Advisory
Committee members, and the general public, as follows:
Task Force membership
Two Members of the Board of Supervisors
Two Members of the Bakersfield City Council
Board of Supervisors
Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force
Apri124, 2007
Page 3
Advisory Committee membership (one r~resentative eachl
California Department of Transportation, Region 6
County Resource Management Agency
County Planning Department
County Roads Department
City Development Services Department
City Planning Department
City Public Works Department
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of CA (CELSOC)
Home Builders Association of Kern County
Kern Council of Governments
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Kern Transportation Foundation
TRIP -Parsons Group
Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County
These fourteen staff and community representatives would provide technical and policy related information to
the four Task Force members.
General Public
Input from the general public and interested parties, such as project proponents, would form this important
aspect of public participation in the process. Based on technical information and public comments, important
issues would be identified and addressed by staff. Reports to the Task Force and related recommendations
would be received publicly with an opportunity for public comment on all matters at the- noticed meetings.
OPERATING PROCEDURES
The following would be general operational procedures:
1. Meetings would be open to the public and publicized consistent with "Brown Act" meeting
requirements.
2. The Task Force would meet at least monthly to review data, share information, and to offer input into
the plan development process.
3. The meetings would be noticed and agendas created by the City Manager's Office and County
Administrative Office. Staff will distribute any materials related to the Task Force's activities.
4. Meetings would occur in either the Board of Supervisors' Chambers or the City Council's Chambers
and be televised on KGOV. .
Board of Supervisors
Emergency Transportation Funding Task Force
Apri124, 2007
Page 4
Information would be provided to the group based on the efforts of aCity-County-Caltrans-Parsons Team that
would focus on the scope of work outlined above and comments received at the meetings. These efforts would
occur during separate working sessions scheduled between meetings.
After discussion by the full group, the Task Force members may make recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors and the City Council.
Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board approve the formation of an Emergency Transportation
Funding Task Force; approve the proposed Task Force and Advisory Committee membership; and appoint two
members of the Board of Supervisors to serve on the Task Force.
Sincerely,
~~.~- ~ ~'
~~ Ronald M. Errea
County Administrative Officer
RM E/ACK/POLGENTRANSPORTAT10N2.doc
CF 600.65
cc: City of Bakersfield
Resource Management Agency
Roads Department
,Planning Department
County Counsel
The following documents pertain to the:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
meeting of Thursday, June 14, 2007
at 1:00 PM.
]une 12, 2007
Planning and Development Committee
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxton Ave.
:Bakersfield, CA 93301
.Dear Gommr~ Members,
As you consider the formation of a Community Open Space Committee I would like you to
consider the 'tWlowing points of information from contemporary urban planners as touching
the importance of Open Spaces for balanced growth:
• Studies. by the American Farmland Trust consistently show that farmland and open
space pay more in taxes than they require in services -providing surpluses to the
community.
• A 2006 American Farmland Trust Study (see attached Fact Sheet: -Cost of Community
Services Studies) of the Cost of Community Services in over 100 communities across
the Urii#ed .States, consistently shows the economic benefit of maintaining an open
land component to produce balanced, smart and economically wise planning and
growth.
• Many strategies are being used to mitigate Open Space approaches to Urban Planning
and Growth, (see attached Fact Sheet: Transfer of Development IZghts)
Undeveloped and open land has value in the .same way an individual has an unused savings
account. You don`t have to spend it to appreciate and understand that it's there if you need
it. Communities who g'n-e up to much open space and agricultural land have essentially
pent their "savings account," and have greatly limited their options for the future.
Please give accommodation to the establishing of this needed group for the .short and long
term planning and devebpment of our city and County..It is needed because of the public
perception that these kinds of determinations/deals are made "behind closed doors," where
ctandesfine deals are being made by the Gty's administrative staff and elected officials. By
establishing -this committee you will be introducing a transparency that will restore the
.public's trust.
Sincerely,
Will Winn
5809 Meadow Oaks Ct.
Bakersfield, California 93306
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
FACT
SHEET
CosT o~
~MMUNiTY
SERVICES
STUDIES
Ameciaan F~rmland'I'ruisi
FnwNUnto Ire Ctaatde
One Short Street Suite 2
Nord~mplon, MA 010Ii0
(800) 3701-9879
www.farmtand"infooeg
Nw~rrow-c O~
1200 18th StreeA; NW, Suite 800
Wa~i~on, OC 20036
1202) 337 7300
www.farmland.org
® Augaut 2006
DESCRIPTION
Cost of Community Services (COGS) studies are a
case study approach used to determine the fiscal
crmtribation of existing local land uses. A subset
of tie much larger field of fiscal analysis, COOS
studies have emerged as anvaexpensive and
reliable tool to measure direct fiscal relationships.
Their pamcnlar niche is to evaluate working
and open lands on equal ground with residential,
commercial. and industrial land uses.
COOS studies are a snapshot in time of costs
versos revenues for each type of land use- They
do rat predict future costs or revenues or the
impact of future growth. They do provide a
boseline of current information to help local
officals and citizens make informed land use
and policy decisions.
METHODOLOGY
ht a COOS study, researchers organize financial
records to assign the cost of municipal services to
working and open lands, as well as to residential,
gal and industrial development.
Researchers meet with local sponsors to define the
scope of the project and identify land use
categories to study. For example, working lands
may include farm, forest and/or ranch lands.
Residential development includes all housing,
including rentals, bat if there is a migrant agricul-
tutglwork force, temporary housing fur these
workers world be considered part of agricultural
land use. oftat ;n rural communities, commercial
and industrial land uses are combined.. COOS
studies findings are displayed as a set of ratios that
compare annual revenues to annual expenditures
for a community's unique mix of land uses.
COGS studies involve three basic steps:
1_ Collect data on local revenues
and expenditures.
2. Coup revenues and expenditures and
albc~te them to the community's major land
use categories.
3. Amlyze the data and calculate revenue-to-
ezpenditure ratios for each land use category.
The process is straightforward, but ensuring
reliable figures requires local oversight. The most
complicated task is interpreting existing records
to reflect COGS land use categories. Allocating
revenues and expenses requires a significant
amount of research, including extensive
interviews with financial officers and public
administrators.
HISTORY
Communities often evaluate the impact of
growth on local budgets by conducting or com-
missioning fiscal impact analyses. Fiscal impact
studies project public costs and revenues from
different land development patterns. They gener-
ally show that residential development is a net
fiscal loss for communities and recommend com-
mercial and industrial development as a strategy
m balance local budgets.
Rural towns and counties that would benefit
from fiscal impact analysis may not have the
expertise or resources to conduct a study. Also,
fiscal impact analyses razely consider the contri-
bution of working and other open lands uses,
which are very important to rural economies.
American Farmland Trust (AFT} developed
COGS studies is the mid-1980s to provide
communities with a straightforward and inex-
pensive way to measure the contribution of agri-
cultural lands to the local tax base. Since then,
COGS studies have. been. conducted in at least
125 communities in the United States.
FUNCT[ONS ~ PURPOSES
Communities pay a high price for unplanned
growth. Scattered development frequently causes
traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss
of open space and increased demand for cosily
public servit~es. This is why it is important for
citizens and local leaders ro understand the rela-
tionships between residential and commercial
growth, agricultural land use, conservation and
their community's bottom line.
The Fatnw~uvo Iwrar~nav Centr3 (FIG) is a clearinghouse for in6annasion about farmland proeection and stewardship.
The FIC is a publidpriv~le partr~etslrip between USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trust.
F1~RMLAN Q
I NFflRMATtON
CENTER
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
COST OF
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
STUDIES
For additiawl information an
farmland protection and stewa~rd¢rip
contact the Farmland Irdorrnatiorr
Center. The FIC offers a staffed
answer service, online library,
program monitoring, ~ci sheets
~ edocatiorral maeeriak.
www.farmtartdinfo.ocg
COOS studies help address three claims that are
commonly made in rural or suburban
rnmmtmities facing growth Pressures:
1.Open lands-including producxive farms and
forests-are as inrPry..+ ]and use that should
be developed to their "highest and best use."
2. Agricultural laud gets an unfair tax break
whey it is assessed at its current use value for
farming or ranching instead of at its potential
use value for residential or commercial
developrttent.
3. Real development will lower property
ta~oes by increasing the tax base.
While it is true that an acre of land with a new
house generates more total revenue than an acre
of hay or corn, this sells us little about a wmma-
nity~ bottom line. In areas where agriculture or
are major industries, it is especially
important to consider the real property tax con-
tribution of privately owned working lands.
Working and other open lands may generate less
revenue than. residential, commercial or industrial
properties, but they require little public itifta-
strucntre and few services.
COGS studies conducted over the last 20 pears
show working lands generate more public rev-
enttes than they t+eceive back in public services.
Their impact on community coffers itr similar to
that of other commercial and industrial land
uses. Oa average, because residential land uses
Median COCS Resnhs
(800) 370.4879
S1.2S
51.00
S0.7S
SOSO
50.25
50.00
do not cover their costs, they must be subsidized
by other community land uses. Converting agri-
cultural land to residential land use should not
be seen as a way to balance local budgets.
The 6n~dir-gs of COOS studies are consistent with
those of vonventional fiscal impact analyses,
which document the high cost of residential
development and recommend commercial and
industrial development to help balance local
budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is
that they show that agricultural land is similar to
other commercial and industrial uses. In every
wmmunity studied, farmland has generated a
fiscal surplos to help offset the shortfall created
by residential demand for public services. This is
true even when the land is assessed at its current,
agricvlatral use. However as more communities
invest in agriculture this tendenry may change.
For example, if a community establishes a pur-
chase of agricultural conservation easement pro-
gram, working and open lauds may generate a
net negative.
Communities need reliable information to help
them see the full picture of their land uses.
COCS studies are an inexpensive way to evalu-
aae the net contribution of working and open
lands. They can help local leaders discard the
notion that natural re~souroes must be wnvetted
to other uses to ensure fiscal stability. They also
dispel the myths that residential development
.leads do lower taxes, that differential assessment
Programs give Ltndawners an "unfair" tax break
and that farmland is an interim land use just
waiting around for development.
One type of land use is not intrinsically better
than another; and COCS studies are not meant
m judge the overall public good or long-term
merits of any land use or taxing structure. It is
np to communities to balance goals such as
maintaining affordable housing, creating jobs
and conserving land. With good planuittg, these
goals can complement rather than compete with
each otheL COCS studies give communities
another tool to make decisions about their
futures.
Amman oust per dollar of revenue raisers to
provide public services to diiKererrt land uses.
~l_~_
Americar+ Farn'rland Trued
Arrrericarr Farmland Trttst works b seep the loss of productive farmland and m promote farming practices that lead en a
healthy erwironment
Commercial working & Residmcial
& Industrial Open Iand
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RAT10S iN DOLLARS
8esidential C~daL Wotiomtg & Santtiie
iadadiaa ~ Imdostrial Open Land
horn hoes
Colorado
Cnstcr County
1.1.16
1:0.71
1:034
Nr~ertp, 2000
Sapac~ Camtp 1:1.17 1 : OS3 1:035 D;ry Inc, 2001
Bolton 1:1.05 1:013 1:0.50 Geisle; 1998
Dim 1:1.07 1:0.27 1 ; 0.23 Southern Near End Foast Consortium, 1995
Farmiogom 1:133 1:0.32 1:0.32 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995
13ebrou 2.:1.06 1:0.47 t :0.43 American Farmla~ Tipsy 1986
add 1 :1.11 1:034 1:034 Southern New England Faust Cor>9rntirrm,1995
Pam
Fi
id 1:1.06 1:0.27 1:0.$6 Southern New Eagland Forest Coasartium, 1495
ar
a
I.rnu Cormt7'
Geor
ia
1:139
i :036
1:0.42
Dorfman, 2004
s
APPa~S ~p 1:2.27 1:0.17 1:035 Dorfmary 2004
Arloe Couosy i :139 1:0.42 1:2.04 Dorfman, 2004
~~ Cart~p 1 : 1S6 1:0.42 1:0.39 Dorfman, 2004
Carroll ~ 1:1.29 1:037 1 : OSS Dolman and Black, 2002
C.~+okne Comfy 1:159 1:0.12 1:020 Dorfman, 2004
Cry 1:128 1:0.45 1:0.80 Dorfman, 2004
~~ ~f 1:2.04 1 : OSO I :027 Dodmaa, 2004
~!` ~p 1 e 1.T2 1:0.10 1:038 Darfimran, 2003
i~ ~ 1:1.73 1:0.66 1:022 I)orfiuvan, 2004
Jones Coantp 1:1.23 1:0.65 I : 03S Dorfman, 2004
11TH Coomp 1:1.54 1: OS2 1: OS3 Doman, 2004
~~~ Camay 1:1.39 1:0.46 1:0.60 Docfmao, 2004
Thomas Coup 1 :1..64 1:0.3$ 1:0.66 Darfiman, 2003
wpm ~p 1:1.08 I :0.79 1 ; OS4 Iiartmaas and Meyey 1997
Cassia Cep 1:1.19 1:0.87 1:0.41 Hammans and Mepey 1997
CamPheB Cep 1:121 1:030 1:038 Amairxn Farmland Trasy 2005
Kennon Camay 1:1.19 1:0.19 1:0.51 American Farmland Tnrsy 2005
Iran-1Ypeme 1:1_b4 1:022 1:0.93 Ameoc~n Farmland Trust, 1999
' 0)d6am Comte 1:1.05 1:029 i ; 0.44 American Farmland Trust, 2003
bhp f'~p
Maine 1:121 1:0.24 1:0.41 American Farmland Trnsy 2003
Betbel 1:129 1 : OS9 1:0.06 Good, 1994
'~ C~tp 2 : i_15 1:0.4$ 1:0.45 Carroll Coump Dew of Management & Budget' 1994
tall ~ 1:1.17 1:034 1:0.66 American Farmland Trust' 2001
~~ ~'Y 1:1.12 1:028 1:037 Cecil County Of6ae of Economic Devdopmeny 1994
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS 1N DOLLARS
7 8esidaotiai COmmacial Worlriog & Sounx
iodadiog & ia~iat Open Land
fsm Isoases
Frederick Co®tp i :1.14 1:030 1:033 Amaicae Farmland Ttast,1997
Har~ord Coamg 1 : LI I i :0.40 1:0.91 Amrtrau Fatmland Tiasy 2003
ICr~ Courep 1: IAS 1:0.64 1:0.42 American Farmland Trost, 20112
Wramioa Cnmuy 1:1.21 1:0.33 1:0.96 Americae Farmhnd Trust, 2001
Agawam 1: i_OS I :0.44 1:031 Amerinn Farmland Trnst,1992
Bec!<et 1:1.02 1:0.83 1:0.72 Soache~ New F.aBland Forest Coosaeanum, 1995
Deerfield 1:1.16 1:0.38 1:0.29 Americaa Fatmbmd Ttest,1992
Frmklin 1:1_02 1:038 1:0.40 Soadeera New Fagaaed Foust Cansaetimq 1995
Gdl 1:1.15 1:0.43 1:0.38 American Fatmland Trttiw, 1992
Levaett 1:1.15 1:029 1:025 5outhein New Forest Caosartium, 1995
Middlehoso 1:1.08 1:0.47 1:0.70 American Farmland T~ 2001
Socnhboroagh 1 : 1.Q3 1:026 1:0.45 Adams and Dees, 1997
d i :1.15 1:0.53 1:039 Sout6em Neer England Forst Consarcium,1995
Willi>ms~uavn 1 : 1_il 1:0.34 1:0.40 Hazlre et aL,1992
Marshall Twp., Calhom Cz~ 1:1.47 1:0.20 1:027 American Farmland Ttust, 2001
Newton Twp., Calhoen Cty. I :2.20 1:025 1:024 American Farmla~ Trost, 2001
'-io Township 1: L40 1:018 1:0.62 Unity of bfChigAn, 1994
M;stecaom
Farmm~toa
i : lA2
1:0.79
1:0.77
American Facmla~ Trus<, 1994
Labe 100 1:1.07 1:020 1:027 Americas Farmland Trast,1994
Iodeperdeeoe
I1
L 1:1.03 1:0.19 1:0.47 American Farmland Trust, 1994
~
osesea
Carboe Coaoty
1:1.60
1:027
1:034
Priem, 1999
Gallmin Comtp t :1.43 1:0.16 1:025 HaSBrrty, 1996
Fluhrad Cocmty .1:1.23 1:026 1:034 Citizens for a Betoer Flathead, 1999
Ncw Hasipdsie
Dee~rld 1:1.15 1:022 1:035 Aagq 1994
Doi+er i :1_15 1:0.63 I :0.94 IGr~slcy ei al., 1993
F~ec 1:1.07 1:0.40 1:0.82 Nieblucg,1.997
Fremont 1 : 2A4 1:0.94 1:036 Auger, 1994
(''tam i : 1.01 1 : 0.12 1:0.88 New Hampshire Wildlife :Federatioe, 2001
S~ 1:1.15 1:0.19 1 : 0 ~0 AagRy 1994
Lyme 1 . LOS 1:0.28 1:0.23 P~Irard, 2000
Ncw Jersey .
Freehold Township 1 :131 1:0.17 1:033 American Farmland Trost, 1998
Holmdel Township 1:138 1:0.21 1:0.66 American Farmland Trust, 1998
' riddfetowm Township 1:1.14 1:034 1:036 Amaocan Farmlat~ Trust, 1998
..per Fc+ee6old Towtnhip 1 ; 1.18 1:020 i :035 American Farmland Trust, 1998
~1i Tovr~np 1 :1.28 1:0.30 ~ : ass Aat~an Farmland Trust,1998
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS
+~»~y R~tial Commerdat Wtaldng & Swusoe
Sz Indastcial Open band
iFarm boasa
Dices lbod~
Amnia 1:1..23 1:0.25 I :0.17 Badrnall, 1989
Beelcman i : i.12 1:0.18 i :048 Amerccao Farmland Trttst,1989
Diz 1 : iSi 2:027 1:0.31 Sc6nyler City Lragac of Wamrea Voters, 1993
1; 1.22 1:0.27 1:0.72 Kiasann et aL,1991
Fishiodl 1:1.23 1:0.31 1:0.74 $nd®all, i989
Nectar 1:1.30 1 ; 0 25 I :028 Scfss-yler Caoety Lire ~ Women Voters, 1993
Kindr~took 1:1.05 1:021 1:0.17 Concerned Cnit~eos of Kinderhoo~k,1996
Maomoar 1: ISO 1:028 1:029 SchnTkr Comity Leagne of ~ibmen Voters, 1992
Northeast 1:136 1:029 1:021 American Farmland Tnyst,1989
R~diog I :1.88 1: d16 i :032 Schuyler Cot~.y Lrap~ue aE Women Voters, .1992
Red I•ic~ok 1:1.2.1 1:020 1:0.22 Bodmall,1989
()loin
Iii County 1: L22 I :0.45 i : 0 49 Amerccan Fam~land Trust; ?.003
Clark Comty 2 :1.11 1:038 1:0.30 Ametipn Farmland Tiast, 2003
Knox Cottaty i : l_05 1:038 2:0.29 Amerian Familand Tma, 2003
Madison Vr7ia0e 1 : I.67 2:010 2:038 Ameuitmn Farmland Tivst,1993
Madison Tosruship i : 1:1d 1 : Q 25 1:030 American Fanalaad Trasc,1993
°tnltxsvtlle Township i :1.58 I :0.17 1:031 Porte Comity Regmoal Planning Comtniss~, 1997
t~rnnea
Alkgheng Tanvnship
1:1.06
2:0.14
1:0.13
Kelsey,1997
Beds Township 1:1.22 1:0.05 1:0.04 Kehry,1997
ileitltei Ta~wnship 1:1.08 1:0.17 1 : d_06 Kehe~ 1992
Bi~ham Township 1 : Lib 1:0.16 2:0.15 Kelsey, 1994
Bndmigbam Towes6ip 1:1.04 1: d.1S 1 : d.08 Kelsey, 19%
Gmal! Tawnsh~ip i :1.03 I :006 1:002 Kelsey, 1992
Hopewell Twrnship 1:127 1:032 1:0..59 The Sotalt Cenoial A~Ny for FOectise Gopemaooe, 2002
Maiden Creek Taweship 1:128 1:0.11 2 : U 06 Kelsey, 1998
Richmond Tosraship 1:124 1:0.09 1:004 KelseA 1998
Shitews6mg Tow~ip 1 c I12 1:0.13 1:0.17 The Salt Cstsual Astem6lg for FSecdse Gooemaoae, 2002
StewareisonTeae~ I :2.21 1:023 1:031 Kdsey,1994
Strahan Tower 1 :1.10 1:0.16 1:0.06 Kelsey, 1992
Saredta Township i :138 1: O.d7 1:0.08 Kelsey, 1994
Shade ~d
i :1.08
1:031
1:031
Somhan New Fmglamd Fmest Consortium, 1993
Little Compdon 1 : 105 1 : OS6 1:0.37 SomLan New Figland Forest Coasortiuny 1995
Fortsmottth 1:1.16 1:0.27 1:039 Ja~too,1997
West Greeaseich
T 1:1.46 1:0.40 1:0.46 Southern IJew England Forest Comsortinm, 1995
~ ~g 1:1.23 1:025 1:0.41 American Farmland Trust, 2006
Roberson County i :1.13 1:0.22 1:0.26 American Farmland Trust, 2046
Trpoon Couatg 1:1.07 1:032 1 : OS7 American Farmland Trust, 2006
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS
'+y Besidea6ial Comma+dal Warldng & Source
& In~ial Open Lam
iEa<m h~
Tarns
Randeca ~F 1: '1.10 1:026 1:026 American Farmland Tract, 2002
Hcaar Camp 1 :1.25 1:020 1: Q18 American Familand Trust' 2004
T~3ags Cc-omy 1 : I.26 1:030 1:033 American Farmland Trust, 2000
Uqi
Cache Clouang 1:127 1 - 023 1:0..37 Snyder and Fagasan,1994
Sesiea Gcwmtp 1:1.11 I :0.31 1:0.99 Snyder and Fagagon, 29'14
(herb ~ 1:123 1:026 1:082 Snyder and 1994
3Ta+apia
Aognsta ~ 1:122
1:020
1:0.80
Yalky Coasersadan Coana7, 1997
Bedford Comty 1 : IA7 1:0.40 1:023 American Faauland Trust, 2005
G'ladce Coamty 1:126 1:021 1 : O.IS Piedmont Envinonmemal Comcil,1994
C Gomny 1:1.22 1:0.41 1:032 American Fatmiand Trust, 2003
Tx~oderick Cnasty 1:1_19 1:023 1:033 American Farmland Trost, 2003
N~Lampaon Cooeap 1:1_13 1:097 1:0.23 American Fanmiand Tn+st,1999
~y 1:1.25 1:030 1:031 Amercan Farmland Trust, 1999
Wisooasm
aaa 1 :1.06 1:029 1:0.18 Town of IAnan,1994
Dmo 1:1.02 1:0.35 1:0.15 Wisooosia Land Use Research Probram,1999
~9 1:110 1:1.04 1:0.41 Wiscoatiin Iattd Llse Research Program, 1999
Westport I :1.11 1 : Q31 1:0_13 Wisoousin Ian Lie Research Fragrant' 1999
Aune~can Farmland Trust's Farmland Information Center acts as a clearinghouse for information about Cost oaf Community
Serer stodies. )Lo~usion in this table does not necessarily signify review or endorsement by American Farmland Trost
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION C E N T E R
1'~`
~~/11~~.
FARMLAND INFORMATION CEKfER
FACT
SHEET
TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS
_.r~L~b
~T~atmland "Bust
DESCRIPTION
Transfer of development rights programs allow
landowners to transfer the right to develop one
pazcel of land to a different parcel of land.
Generally, TDR programs are established by
local wring ordinances. In the context of farm-
land protection, TDR is used to shift develop-
ment from agricultural areas to designated
growth zones closer to municipal services. The
parcel of land where the rights originate is called
the "sending" parcel. When the rights are trans-
ferred from a sending parcel, the land is restrict-
ed with a permanent conservation easement. The
parcel of land to which the rights are transferred
is called the "receiving" pazcel. Buying these
rights generally allows the owner to build at a
higher density than ordinarily permitted by the
base wring. TDR is known as transfer of devel-
opment credits (TDC) in California and in some
regions of New Jersey.
TDR programs are based on the concept that
property owners have a bundle of different
rights, including the right to use land, lease,
sell and bequeath it, borrow money using it as
security, construct buildings on it and mine it,
subject to reasonable local land use regulations.
Some or all of these rights can be transferred or
sold to another person. When a landowner sells
property, generally all the rights aze transferred
to the buyer: TDR programs enable landowners
to separate and sell the right to develop land
from their other property rights.
TDR is most suitable in places where large
blocks of land remain in farm use. In communi-
ties with a fragmented agricultural land base,
it is difficult to find a viable sending area.
Jurisdictions also must be able to identify
receiving areas that can accommodate the
development to be transferred out of the fazming
area. The receiving areas must have the physical
capacity to absorb new units, and residents
of those areas must be willing to accept higher
density development. Often, residents of poten-
tial receiving areas must be persuaded that the
benefits of protecting farmland outweigh the
costs of living in a more compact neighborhood.
TDR programs aze distinct from purchase of
agricultural conservation easement (PACE) pro-
grams because they involve the private market.
Most TDR transactions aze between private
landowners and developers. Local governments
generally do not have to raise taxes or borrow
funds to implement TDR. A few jurisdictions
have experimented with public purchase and
"banking" of development rights. A TDR bank
buys development rights with public funds and
sells the rights to private landowners.
HISTORY
TDR is used predominantly by counties, towns
and townships. The 1981 National Agricultural
Lands Study reported that 12 jurisdictions had
enacted TDR programs to protect farmland and
open space, but very few of these programs had
been implemented. Irt the 1980s and 1990s,
many local governments adopted TDR ordi-
nances. Asurvey in the spring of 2000 identified
50 jurisdictions with TDR ordinances on the
books. Three programs had been revoked.
Despite the widespread adoption of TDR, only
fifteen programs have protected more than 100
acres of farmland and only eight programs have
protected more than 1,000 acres of farmland.
Twenty-two programs, or 44 percent, have not
protected any agricultural land. Since 1980,
Montgomery County, Maryland, has protected
40,583 acres using TDR, or 60 percent of the
national total (67,707 acres).
TECH-n~cni. Assrsrnrrce
Qne Short Street, Suite 2
Northampton, MA 01060
Tel: (800) 370-4879
Fax: (413) 586-9332
Web: www.farmlandinfoorg
NA7[Oxnt OFFICE
1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800
,hington, DC 20036
:a: (202) 331-7300
Fax: (202)659-8339
Web: www farmland.org
January 2001
FUNCTIONS & PURPOSES
TDR programs can be designed to accomplish
multiple goals including farmland protection,
conservation of environmentally sensitive areas
and preservation of historic landmarks. In the
context of farmland protection, TDR programs
prevent non-agricultural development of farm-
land, reduce the market value of protected farms
and provide farmland owners with liquid capital
that can be used to enhance farm viability.
TDR programs also offer a potential solution
to the political and legal problems that many
communities face when they try to restrict devel-
The Farmland Im formation Ce-~er is a pmblic/privoAe paremership beaveen Ame-icam Farmland Dust and the USDA Natural
Resources Conserualiom Service that provides technical information about farmland proiedion.
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS
For additional information on
transfer of development rights
and other farmland protection
programs, the Farmland
Information Center o ffers pub-
lications, an online library and
technical assistance.
farmland information
library is a searchable database
of literature, abstracts, statutes,
Harps, legislative updates and
other useful resources.
It can be reached at
http:llwurw.farmlandinfo.org.
For additional assistance on
sped ftc topics, call the
technical assistance service
ar (800} 370-4879.
A»urrcanFarntlattd That
opment of farmland. Landowners often oppose
agricultural protection zoning (APZ) and other
land use regulations because they can reduce
equity. APZ can benefit farmers by preventing
urbanization, but it may also reduce the fair maz-
ket value of their land. When downzoning is
planning process. Comprehensive planning helps
a community envision its future and generally
involves extensive public participation. The
process of developing a community vision may
help build understanding of TDR and support for
farmland protection.
combined with a TDR program, however
landowners can retain their equity by selling
development rights.
ISSUES TO ADDRESS
In developing a TDR program, planners must
address a variety of technical issues. These issues
include:
• Which agricultural areas should be protected?
• What type of transfers should be permitted?
• How should development rights be allocated?
• Where should development be transferred, and
at what densities?
• Should the zoning in the sending area be
changed to create more of an incentive for
landowners to sell development rights?
• Should the zoning in the receiving azea be
changed to create more of an incentive for
developers to buy development rights?
• Should the local government buy and sell
development rights through a TDR bank?
One of the most difficult aspects of implementing
TDR is developing the right mix of incentives.
Farmers must have incentives to sell development
rights instead of building lots. Developers must
benefit from buying development rights instead
of building houses according to the existing
standards. Thus, local governments must predict
the likely supply of and demand for development
rights in the real estate market, which determines
the price., TDR programs are sometimes created
in conjunction with APZ: New construction is
restricted in the agricultural zone, and farmers
are compensated with the opportunity to sell
development rights.
Because the issues are so complex, TDR pro-
grams are usually the result of a comprehensive
BENEFITS OF TDR
• TDR protects farmland permanently, while
keeping it in private ownership.
• Participation in TDR programs is voluntary-
landowners are never required to sell their
development rights.
• TDR promotes orderly growth by concentrating
development in azeas with adequate public
services.
• TDR programs allow landowners in
agricultural protection zones to retain their
equity without developing their land.
- TDR programs are market-driven-private
parties pay to protect farmland, and more land
is protected when development pressure is high.
• TDR programs can accomplish multiple goals,
including farmland protection, protection of
environmentally sensitive areas, the develop-
ment of compact urban areas, the promotion
of downtown commercial growth and the
preservation of historic landmarks.
DRAWBACKS OF TDR
• TDR programs are technically complicated and
require a significant investment of time and
staff resources to implement.
• TDR is an unfamiliar concept. A lengthy and
extensive public education campaign is
generally required to explain TDR to citizens.
- The pace of transactions depends on the private
mazket for development rights. If the real estate
market is depressed, few rights will be sold, and
little land will be protected.
Source: American Farmland Trust, Saving American
Farmland: What Works (Northampton, MA 1997)
American Farmland Tryst works to stop the loss o f productive fanriland and to promotc farroung pracirces that lead to a
heald~q environment.
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST' FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH TDR PROGRAMS FOR FARMLAND, 2000
Date Atxes of Total
Ordinance Farmland Acxes
State/County Enacted Protected Protected Notes
California
Mann County
1981
670
670
'San Mateo County 1986 40 40
San Luis Obispo County 1996 0 0
Colorado
Boulder County 1995 -2,800 -3,200
Connecticut
Windsor 1993 0 0
Florida
Hillsborough County 1985 0 0
Palm Beach County 1992 0 6,573
Idaho
Fremont County 1991 0 200
Maine
Cape Elizabeth 1982 0 0
Maryland
Calvert County 1978 8,000 8,000
Caroline County 1989 NA NA
Charles County 1992 1,183 1,183
Hayford County 1992 NA NA
Howard County 1992 1,438 NA
Momgomery County 1980 40,583 40,583
Queen Anne's County 1987 2,000 2,417
~St. Mary's County 1990 0 6
Talbot County 1989 800 580
Massachusetts
Groton 1980 50 292
Hadley 2000 0 0
Sunderland 1974 NR NR
Townsend 1989 0 0
ll~nnesota
Blue Earth County
1977
-3,000
-3,000
Montana
Springhill Community, Gallatin County 1992 200 200
New Jersey
Chesterfield Township, Burlington County 1998 0 0
Hillsborough Township, Somerset County 1975 0 0
Ltmtberton Township, Burlington County 1996 863 563
New Jersey Pinelands 1981 5,722 19,238
Muki-PmPo~ P~~
Bonus rights awarded for development of agricultural water storage
Multi-purpose program, appraisals used to allocate development rights
Mull-propose program, mandatory program, bonus development
rights awarded for available agricultural water rights
Multi-purpose program
Multi purpose program
Multi-p program, original program created in 1980,
substantially revised in 1992
Muh--Pu-'Pore ProB~
Multi-P~P~ P1Ogr~
Sending and receiving areas must be within 500 feet of each other
Mull-Purpose Program, county purchases and retires
development righu
Mandatory program
Mulri-purpose program, rights can be used to inaease residential
density or to increase square footage of impervious surface area in
non-residential applications
Multi-Purpose program
Mull-PmPo~ P~'~
Muhi-purpose program
Rights can be used to inaease commercial and industrial square
footage and reduce parking requirements. Aa alternate mechanism
allows developers to make cash payments into a farmland protection
fund in lieu of buying development rights to receive the density bonuses
Multi-P~Po~ Pr~~
Mandatory program
Multi-purpose program
Multi-Purpose program
Mull-Purpose program
Mull-purpose program, mandatory program
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION C E N T E R
Date Aces of Total
Ordinance Farmland Aces
StatelCounty Enacted Protected Protecxed Notes
New York
Eden 1977 31 38 Mulct-purpose program
*Perinton 1993 56 82 Multi-purpose program
Central Pine Barrens (Long Island) 1995 NA 307 Mulct-purpose program, mandatory program, rights can be used to increase
residential density, commercial square footage or permitted sewage flow
'Southampton 1972 0 232 Mulri-purpose program
Pennsylvania
Birmu-gham Township, Chester County 1978 0 0 Multi purpose program
*Buckingbam Township, Bucks County 1975 280 280
Chaaceford Township, York County 1979 0 0
Codorus Township, York County 1990 40 40 PROGRAM REVOI~D
Fast Hopewell Township, York County 1984 NA NA
*Fast Nantmeal Township, Chester County 1994 0 0
Hopewell Township, York County 1988 NR NR
London Grove Towmhip, Chestsr County 1995 0 0 Point system used in allocaton of development rights
*I.ower Chanceford Township, York County 1990 200 200 Transfers between adjacent parcels in common ownership only
Manheim Township, Lancaster County 1991 190 190 PROGRAM REVOKED
Sluevasbury Township, York County 1991 NA -100 TDR bank under discussion
Springfield Township, York County 1996 0 0 Mulii-purpose program
*Warrington Township, Bucks County 1985 0 0 Rights can be used to increase commercial/mdustrial building coverage and
impervious surface area
Washington Township, Berks County 1994 0 0
Jtah
*Tooele 1995 0 0
Vermont
Jericho 1992 0 0 Multi-purpose program, mandatory program point system used for the
allocation of development rights
South Burlington 1992 50 250 Multi-purpose program, mandatory program
Williston 1990 NA NA Mull-purpose program
Virginia
Blacksburg 1996 23 23 Multi-purpose program
Washington
Island County 1984 88 88 PROGRAM REVOKED
Thurston County 1995 0 0 Mandatory program
TOTALS 67,707 88,575
* Information from 1997 survey °NA" means that the program's otmtact person reported that the data either was not available or was not tracked.
"NR° means that the program~a contact person did not reply to the 1997 or the 2000 survey.
The terms `voluntary" and "mandatory" can be confusing when used in reference to TDR. For the purposes of this fact sheet we categorize TDR programs as "mandatory"
if land use regulations leg., APZ) are adopted at the dme the program is orated to reduce the amount of development drat can occur in the sending area. Under ¢mandatory"
Programs landowners who want to realize their full equity based on the old regulations must sell their development rights. For example, Thurston County, Wash., imposed
APZ on more than 12,000 aces decreasing maximum residential density from one unit per five acres to one unit per 20 acres. Landowners in the agricultural zones can
develop their land under the new zoning rules, or if they choose to parddpare in the TDR program, can sell one development right per five acres. TDR programs in
Montgomery County, Md_, and the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, use the same approach. Boulder County, Colorado, made the criteria for non-urban planned nnit develop-
nts (NUPUDs) stricter at the time the TDR program was enacted. Previously, any landowner with 3S acres qualified for a NUPUD. Now, landowners are required to own
~J acres to qualify. NUPUDs allow development a[ the same rates as the TDR program,
Surveys were sent to programs identified bq staff and profiled in farmland protection and planning publicadoas, inducting Sav¢d By Deuelop»rent by Rick Pruett, AICP.
The table is meant to be comprehensive, R you are aware of other TDR programs that protect fa®land, pleare contact AFI's technical assists-•+~e setvioe.
Page 1 of ]
Michelle Muniz -Fwd: Planning and Development Committee
From: City_Council
To: Amber Lawrence; John W. Stinson; Michelle Muniz; Ochoa, Charity; Rhonda Smiley
Date: 6/14/2007 5:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: Planning and Development Committee
Attachments:
Dear Council Members of the Planning and Development Committee,
I have been made aware of your meeting on June 14th and am sorry that I cannot attend the meeting to comment.
However I would like to voice my approval for the formation of an Open Space Committee. Such a committee
would look at our community as a whole bringing the whole process into the open and allowing developers to
know what to expect up front. With as much undeveloped land in and around Bakersfield as there is, it makes
sense to have a committee that would develop reasonable guidelines and allow public input.
Sincerely,
Marci S. Cunningham
5301 Fallgatter St
Bakersfield CA 93308
324-7376 home
395-6874 work
file://C:\Documents and Settings\mmuniz\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\46718093CIT... 6/15/2007
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, June 14, 2007
ATTENDANCE LIST
Name
s~;~ Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail
-~ ~ ~ 1
~~ ~.,
c.~c.~. ~.~. ~a w ~~ ~ ~ - 3 7 2- /
3 2 (o
' 1 ~~J ~~r/ LJ" ~' /
~ 2lO ~~/ ~"'
~ y~
6 6-Z L ~- / V 1 ~ /~ `
/~ C-f -~I ~~5!'~ S ~ v Cc~
~ ~ ~ C~
~,\ R;~~~S
N~~~h.~ ~~x~~e ~~ ~ 2,26 - X721
r
c~~'"(X- ~~.,.'-'_"" ~,'",~ ~*~ (l wig K ~ `~
~~ ~CG f<E~ <y/~~cc ~.~. L.q,H-~ ~~~-cv~.~~ 391 ~-2 7.5~,
~~ p ~ our
/~~ k h ~ Ud~t ~ P std v ~ ~t~u h J.t7717`7 ~Q' Ci Glut ~`"/'~ Gr 01 • C
/ L ~ L/~i / /l/ '
1-'~'r`~! .` ~.+`'~n
~~ .~/ i-~-~l i ~ . ~~,a" UJI /~//OI~I ~- ~'2-Q ~°.~17
air e ~b~S i ~~
)
/ U
e s ~ l~ ~ ~I
ryt ~2 , ~ ~ ~~~G~~ --_ ----
c~-G~ 2 r'~,~~lel ~ C ~
~!, e ~ ~ ~~ ~~`y.,~i/ re i e~ ~ oLO 1. CiDn~c
r
C1 r . ~ '~ ~.Q_ r~ u r
bl Q ,^
~ ~ r ~ ~ 1 ~-t
~'~ t tz r~ r ~ ` v~ C
~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ lam"'°~
r~~'~i~~a~~
~2- C~?~
~E'•'f. o~'~
P
hti