Lorelei Oviatt has moved through the LAFCo control over sprawl and is to the transportation network and supply and demand.

There are 50,000 undeveloped acres in the urban core and 35,942 undeveloped lots.

The average number of lots we develop in an average year is 2,000.

Soooo. We have already approved around 18 years worth of new development.

Wow that took a brain surgeon for them to figure that out eh JBurger!!!  We the citizens of Bake have been say that for a very long time and THEIR lightbulb just came on!!

On SB 375 and AB 32 - the two pieces of climate control legislation that are shaping this plan - Oviatt makes the arguement that, if the county doesn't reduce greenhouse gasses by controlling the loose nature of growth in Bakersfield then the county would lose state transportation money it needs to build freeways and road systems to  serve that loose-knit growth area.

Craig Pope explained that the central core of the city - in the General Plan the area where development would be allowed - is the area where the current Metro Bakersfield Traffic Impact fee plan has funded roads through 2035.

If you develop beyond that area, he said, you're building in areas were the city and county have not prepared to fund transportation improvements.

Oviatt is laying out some various possible ways of  crafting the plan that would help encourage company development.

Deeply interesting:

A - keep doing what we're doing.

B - build to the transportation network as it is expected to be in 2035.

C - give development approval only to projects that have real bricks and morter urban projects already in place next to them.

D - give development approval to projects next to approved projects (don't have to be built)

E - no boundaries for development but more standards.

Another interesting concept. Oviatt is excited about this one...

It would create "focused infill promotion areas" in places like Oildale, Lamont, East Bakersfield, Western Rosedale and the Airport Economic Opportunity Area.

In those areas there would be requirements that development would be transit-oriented, next to existing development, is high-density and has a diverse number of uses (housing, shopping, service, office) all in the same place.

In exchange developers would get faster environmental approval, clear direction about what can be built where, remove level of service standards for roads, etc.

Oviatt is telling supervisors what staff wants from them:

What do you think about boundaries for planning urban growth?

What do you think about the Focused Infill Promotion Areas?

Should the staff look at an alternative to the current level of service standard for roads.

Supervisor Michael Rubio is asking Oviatt to define urban:

• is on a community sewer system

• has swift response times for fire and police.

• you have public water.

Rubio would like to add having public transit.

Maggard has three questions;

• Should we develop a system of cooridors that accomodate bicycling?

Oviatt - city and county are working to integrate trails maps of the metro area.

• What prevision is being proposed to protect unique water-recharge areas.

Oviatt - some existing areas have been included in non-developable turf on the maps.

"I'm not talking about what already exists," Maggard said. H

• Can we get rid of the lines on the maps.

"It is, in my opinion, arbitrary every time you draw a line," he said. "I'm looking for a way for the market to determine this."

He's suggesting teired development fees. Developers would pay for the cost of getting infrastructure from where it is to where they want to build.

Oviatt said the idea works for things like sewer service. It doesn't work with transportation.

"The lines are being drawn for us," said Ted James.

Maggard is riding this issue hard. This is the critical debate I think we're going see from developers - that the lines are arbitrary and unfair. A person on one side of the road get's to build and a person on the other can't.

Pope said the staff has been struggling with the problem of the arbitrary lines for three years.

But he said if you move development further out you don't just have to build another mile of road - you have to start building freeways at a dramatically higher cost.

Maben agrees with Rubio - if it's not near transit it isn't urban.

He's making the point that Maggard's market-drive development idea is ignoring the fact that it was the development market that got us into a situation where we have 17 (really 18) years of approved development waiting to be built.

Supervisor Jon McQuiston is asking another interesting question:

Do the city and county have the same objective in developing this plan?

The city, he said, lives or dies on sales tax revenue. They need to improve sprawling growth to keep their coffers full.

That's not so much the case for the county.

Should the county and the city have different plans?

Another good one:

Are we developing a local transportation plan or a regional transportation?

He said keeping regional disel truck traffic moving through the area (rather than stop-n-going all the way out along Rosedale Highway) can reduce major greenhouse gas emissions.

"I'm not buying into 'every line is arbitrary,'" McQuiston said. "I think we have something that has a rational basis"

He doesn't like growth boundaries, necessarily.

Kenneth Cannon is suggesting the development of 150 acres of underutilized piece of ground that has great connection to roads and infrastructure...the Kern County Fair Grounds.

"For 30 years the sand from this parking lot blows into my yard," Cannon said. "A count fair belongs in the rural areas of the county."

Donna Carpenter is up. She's a local development advocate.

Her pitch is that, with technology, more people will be telecommuting and there will be less driving.

Arthur Unger with Sierra Club is up.

Currently we're relying on out member Gordon Nipp suing the larger developers to gain concessions for some of the things he believes the supervisors should take a stronger roll in addressing those concerns.

Urban transit serves the non-driving public. We should not be building on the land that grows the most food per the amount of water  put on it.

Brian Milich with Corky McMillian Homes, is suggesting the creation of a taskforce of developers, land owners, environemental groups and others to provide input.

He doesn't like the urban limit lines.

Bob Smith with Bike Bakersfield is up.

"The safety and capacity of the street need to accomodate bicyclists,"  Smith said. "We've talked to a lof of bicycle users and they simply do not feel safe on the streets of Bakersfield."

"The transportation system drives your developement density," he said.

Well of course he doesn't like urban limit lines!!!!!  Yup we need another "task force" in this town. Does anybody even know what the other task forces/committees are doing???  or are the in name only so we all think they are really doing something!

A developer who owns 2,200 "blue" acres in the northeast Bakersfield area (land that wouldn't in the develop zone until after 2035) is making it clear that he doesn't much like the idea of development boundaries.

Andreas Lewis of Neighborhood Development is up.

He said the county needs to come up with a plan, set the rules and let developers move forward.

"This system right now seems to have come to a complete standstill," he said.

Rich O'Neil is saying that planning with developer's pocketbooks in mind has resulted in the problems we're having with the development of the community.

"We have a 2020 Vision and we're not following it," O'Neil said.

He's saying having two entities doing development in the urban area is cumbersome and the county should step aside in the planning game and let the city do the work.

Tom Dee representing Western Properties is concerned that having a line on a planning map will impact the value of the company's land, ability to get financing and ability to build it.

He doesn't want the land "encumbered" with rules and restrictions that would limit their ability to get financing and develop the land.

Dave Dmohowski, an engineer, is pitching the idea that if the county plans to put transit and walkable communities in fringe development then they can meet legislative goals for controlling greenhouse gases.

Horse trails in those walkable communities would also help with controlling green house gases (except for methane).

Bob Decker of the Home Builder's Association is speaking.

The city and county have a tall task in meeting the legislative mandates.

He is supporting the idea of CEQA streamlining.

He's qualifying the 35,000 lot number.

"To say that we have 17 years of inventory is simply not accurate," he said.

Lots have a shelf-life and they do expire.

Public comments are done.

"We're trying to plan for the future," Rubio said. "But we're also trying to pay for the sins of the past."

Supervisors are directing staff to come up with a "game plan" and lay out the process moving forward that will lead to final plan.

I was there last night for almost all of it.  My analysis?  Developers don't like lines, current residents don't like development moving away from central Bake, supervisors don't really care what happens as long as they can get home for some dinner, City Planning is really trying and I don't blame Mr. Cannon for getting sick of the Fairgrounds as a neighbor.  He's right about where a Fairgrounds should be located. - out off 99 somewhere maybe.  Bottom line, by 2035 most of the people who were there won't be around anymore.  Get some young blood working on plans for what could be very lovely city with proper planning.  History tells us that the further out development moves, the more run down inner cities get.  I say stick to the lines, develop the Fairgrounds, make it a model city that others will envy and late night comedians will brag about.