Greater Tehachapi Area Plan

Transcription

MA
DR
Y2
AF
010
T
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction. ............................................................................... 1-1
Introduction........................................................................................ 1-2
Project Location.................................................................................... 1-3
1.2
Specific Plan Purpose and Authority.................................................... 1-8
1.3 Rescission of Existing Specific Plans.................................................... 1-9
1.4
Specific Plan Preparation Process......................................................... 1-10
Existing Conditions Reports................................................................... 1-11
1.4.1
1.4.2
Public Outreach..................................................................................... 1-11
1.4.3
Specific Plan......................................................................................... 1-12
Program EIR....................................................................................... 1-12
1.4.4
1.5
Background......................................................................................... 1-13
History of Study Area........................................................................... 1-13
1.5.1
1.5.2
Physical Character of GTASP Study Area............................................. 1-13
1.5.3
Existing Development and General Plan Build-out Capacity.................... 1-14
1.5.4
Greater Tehachapi Communities............................................................. 1-15
1.6
Specific Plan Structure......................................................................... 1-21
1.7
Acronyms & Abbreviations.................................................................. 1-22
1.1
1.1.1
Chapter 2 land use............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4
2.2
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
Purpose and Scope............................................................................... 2-2
Baseline Conditions............................................................................... 2-3
Existing Development............................................................................ 2-3
Existing Land Use Classifications......................................................... 2-7
Land Use Designation System for the Specific Plan................................. 2-11
Assumptions and Issues....................................................................... 2-23
General Land Use and Development....................................................... 2-23
Residential Development........................................................................ 2-24
Commercial & Industrial Development................................................... 2-26
Resource Management .......................................................................... 2-27
Land Use Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures...................... 2-28
General Land Use and Development....................................................... 2-28
Residential Development........................................................................ 2-33
Commercial and Industrial Development................................................ 2-35
Resource Management........................................................................... 2-38
Chapter 3 conservation & Open space................................................. 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
Purpose, Scope, and Contents............................................................... 3-2
Water Resources.................................................................................... 3-2
Scenic and Natural Resources................................................................ 3-6
Biological Resources.............................................................................. 3-6
Cultural Resources................................................................................. 3-8
Mineral Resources................................................................................. 3-9
Air Quality........................................................................................... 3-15
Renewable Energy................................................................................. 3-16
Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan
May 2010
i
3.2.8
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
Parks and Recreation............................................................................. 3-20
Conservation Element Goals, Policies, and implementation measures... 3-21
Water Resources.................................................................................... 3-22
Scenic and Natural Resources................................................................ 3-28
Biological Resources.............................................................................. 3-30
Cultural Resources................................................................................. 3-33
Mineral Resources................................................................................. 3-34
Air Quality........................................................................................... 3-35
Renewable Energy................................................................................. 3-37
Parks and Recreation............................................................................. 3-39
Chapter 4circulation.................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3
4.2.4 4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
General Circulation and Roadways......................................................... 4-3
Trails and Bicycle/Equestrian/Pedestrian Networks................................ 4-5
Transit Services.................................................................................... 4-7
Rail Services and Aircraft Operations . .................................................. 4-7
Circulation Element goals, Policies, And Implementation Measures..... 4-9
General Circulation and Roadways......................................................... 4-9
Trails and Bicycle/Equestrian/Pedestrian Networks................................ 4-14
Transit Services.................................................................................... 4-17
Rail Services and Aircraft Operations..................................................... 4-18
Chapter 5 safety................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3
5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 Purpose and Scope............................................................................... 5-2
Assumptions and Issues . ..................................................................... 5-3
Seismic Hazards, Landslides, Steep Slopes, and Liquefaction.................. 5-3
Flood Hazards, Shallow Groundwater, and Dam Failure ........................ 5-6
Wildland Fire Hazard........................................................................... 5-9
Safety Element Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures............. 5-13
General Safety....................................................................................... 5-13
Seismic Hazards, Landslides, Steep Slopes, and Liquefaction.................. 5-15
Flood Hazard, Shallow Groundwater, and Dam Failure........................... 5-18
Wildland Fire Hazard .......................................................................... 5-20
Chapter 6 noise..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1
6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 Purpose and Scope............................................................................... 6-2
General Noise and Noise Sensitive Areas................................................ 6-3
Roadways............................................................................................. 6-5
Rail Operations and Ground Vibration................................................... 6-5
Airports and Aircraft Operations............................................................ 6-6
Industrial Operations............................................................................ 6-9
Energy Operations................................................................................. 6-10
Noise Element Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures.............. 6-11
General Noise and Noise Sensitive Areas ............................................... 6-11
Roadways............................................................................................. 6-14
Railway Operations and Ground Vibrations............................................ 6-14
May 2010
ii
6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 Airports and Airport Operations............................................................ 6-15
Industrial Operations ........................................................................... 6-16
Energy Operations ................................................................................ 6-17
Chapter 7 sustainability. ............................................................................ 7-1
7.1
7.2 7.2.1
7.2.2
7.3
Strategic Growth.................................................................................... 7-3
Issues................................................................................................... 7-5
Sustainability Element Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures.7-6
Chapter 8 housing.............................................................................................. 8-1
8.1
May 2010
iii
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1Regional Location Map........................................................................ 1-5
FIGURE 1-2
Specific Plan Boundary Map................................................................ 1-6
Study Area Township, Range, and Sections.......................................... 1-7
FIGURE 1-3
FIGURE 1-4
Greater Tehachapi Area Communities.................................................. 1-16
Previously Adopted Specific Plans....................................................... 1-17
FIGURE 1-5
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 2-2
FIGURE 2-3
FIGURE 2-4
FIGURE 2-5
FIGURE 2-6
FIGURE 2-7
FIGURE 2-8
FIGURE 2-9
FIGURE 2-10
Special Treatment Areas...................................................................... 2-4
Distribution of Homes in the GTA....................................................... 2-5
Agriculture Preserves........................................................................... 2-8
Williamson Act Contract Lands............................................................ 2-9
Land Use Plan..................................................................................... 2-18
Detail Areas......................................................................................... 2-19
Detail Area 1 – Bear Valley Springs...................................................... 2-20
Detail Area 2 – Alpine Forest and Keene Rural Community................. 2-21
Detail Area 3 – Golden Hills and Old Towne......................................... 2-22
Military Review Requirements............................................................. 2-25
FIGURE 3-1
FIGURE 3-2
FIGURE 3-3
FIGURE 3-4
FIGURE 3-5
FIGURE 3-6
FIGURE 3-7
FIGURE 3-8
CSD and Water Company Service Areas............................................... 3-4
Scenic Resources and Recreation Map.................................................. 3-7
Sensitive Species Areas......................................................................... 3-10
Oak Woodland/Forest Areas................................................................. 3-11
Culturally Sensitive Areas.................................................................... 3-12
Paleontological Sensitivity Areas......................................................... 3-13
Mineral Resources................................................................................ 3-14
Wind Energy Combining Districts and Tehachapi Wind Resource Area..... 3-19
FIGURE 4-1Roadways Map..................................................................................... 4-4
FIGURE 4-2
Traffic Impact Fee Areas...................................................................... 4-6
FIGURE 4-3
Kern County Bicycle Facilities Plan – Tehachapi Area......................... 4-8
FIGURE 4-4
Transit Map......................................................................................... 4-10
FIGURE 4-5Railroads and Airports Map................................................................. 4-11
FIGURE 5-1
FIGURE 5-2
FIGURE 5-3
FIGURE 5-4
FIGURE 5-5
FIGURE 5-6
Seismic Hazards................................................................................... 5-4
Landslide Areas and Steep Slopes......................................................... 5-5
Liquefaction Risk................................................................................. 5-7
Flood Zones......................................................................................... 5-8
Dams and Inundation Areas Map......................................................... 5-10
Fire Hazard Severity Zones.................................................................. 5-12
FIGURE 6-1
Major Noise Sources............................................................................. 6-4
FIGURE 6-2Railroad Noise Contours...................................................................... 6-7
FIGURE 6-3
Mountain Valley Airport Noise Contours.............................................. 6-8
May 2010
iv
List of Tables
TABLE 1-1
Study Area Quad Sheets, Township, Range and Sections...................... 1-4
TABLE 2-1Existing Specific Plans in the GTA....................................................... 2-6
TABLE 2-2
Acreages of Williamson Act Contract Lands and Agriculture Preserves..... 2-7
TABLE 2-3Existing County Land Use Map Code Designations.............................. 2-10
TABLE 2-4Existing County Physical Constraints Overlays Classifications and Acreages... 2-11
TABLE 2-5
GTASP Land Use Designation System................................................. 2-12
GTASP Land Use Designations and Acreages....................................... 2-16
TABLE 2-6
TABLE 2-7Existing County Physical Constraints Overlays Classifications
and Acreages in the GTA...................................................................... 2-17
TABLE 2-8
Summary of Existing Development, 2030 Planning Horizon Growth
Alternatives, and General Plan Capacity with Constraints.................... 2-26
TABLE 3-1
Groundwater Basin Water Availability................................................. 3-3
TABLE 3-2
KCAPCD Air Quality Attainment Status............................................. 3-15
TABLE 3-3Emissions from Existing Sources in the GTA........................................ 3-16
TABLE 5-1
GTA Dams........................................................................................... 5-9
TABLE 6-1
TABLE 6-2
TABLE 6-3
Noise Level Standards for Sensitive Land Use Categories...................... 6-3
Distance to Roadway Noise Contour Lines........................................... 6-5
Distance to Railroad Noise Contour Lines............................................ 6-6
May 2010
v
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
The Greater Tehachapi Area (GTA) is a collection of unincorporated communities
located in eastern Kern County along state route (SR) 58 between the San Joaquin
valley and the Mojave Desert (see Figure 1-1, Regional Location Map). The GTA
generally encompasses the rural communities of Alpine Forest, Bear Valley Springs,
Brite Valley, Cummings Ranch, Cummings Valley, Golden Hills, Mendiburu Springs,
Monolith, Old Towne, and Stallion Springs. Although the specific plan boundaries
completely surround the city of Tehachapi, the incorporated city areas are not subject
to the provisions of this plan, but are considered part of the overall GTA.
The GTA is known for its four seasons, railroad history (including the Tehachapi Loop),
electricity-generating wind turbines, and distinctive rural communities containing
primary and secondary homes. The rural communities that make up much of the area
have developed over a 30 to 40 year
The Greater Tehachapi Area
period, with many starting as second
Specific Plan will allow the
home communities and transitioning
County to identify and coordinate
into primary home communities.
implementation strategies and
Since 2000, the GTA’s population has
policies for future land uses
grown from approximately 28,400 to
by balancing the competing
approximately 35,000, an increase
social, economic, resource, and
of about 23 percent. In response to
environmental factors for any
this growth, the County Of Kern
future growth and development in
has recognized that a coordinated
the unincorporated area.
planning effort is needed to guide
future growth within the Greater Tehachapi Area while protecting the area’s unique
character and environmental resources.
The Kern County General Plan outlines the growth opportunities and challenges facing
all of Kern County. The growth opportunities and challenges that are particularly
relevant to the GTA area include, but are not limited to:
•
Promoting managed economic growth while ensuring continued resource
conservation,
May 2010
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Acting on this recognition, the County initiated preparation of a new program-level
specific plan for the study area. This planning effort is entitled the Greater Tehachapi
Area Specific Plan (GTASP). This new specific plan will allow the County to identify
and coordinate implementation strategies and policies for future land uses by balancing
the competing social, economic, resource, and environmental factors for any future
growth and development in the unincorporated area. It will also consolidate and/or
rescind many of the existing Specific Plans and other community plans in the region.
1-2
•
Promoting strategic growth concepts to effectively manage the County’s future
development,
•
Enhancing the linkage between land use and water supply planning, and
•
Acknowledging air quality’s role in land use planning,
•
Ensuring implementation of Senate Bill 375 (2008) and the greenhouse gas
policies of Assembly Bill 32 (2006)
•
Promoting Kern County’s importance in energy development.
The GTASP addresses these issues and provides development guidance for the GTA
from 2010 through the year 2035. The GTASP will work in tandem with the County’s
General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the orderly, efficient, and
sustainable development of the GTA. Consistent with State and County requirements,
the GTASP sets forth a land use plan and goals, policies, and implementation measures
designed to ensure any future development in the GTA is consistent with the goals and
policies of the County’s General Plan while recognizing the uniqueness of the region.
1.1.1Project Location
The GTA encompasses approximately 275 square miles or 176,000 acres, as shown
on Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2, Specific Plan Boundary Map. The eastern boundary of
the GTA is predominantly west of Tehachapi Willow Springs Road and Oak Creek
Pass. The western boundary is near Hart Flat Road just east of SR-223. The northern
boundary of the GTA is Orejano Ridge on the west to just south of Stevenson Peak on
the east. The southern boundary is generally defined by Cummings Mountain, Double
Mountain, and Tehachapi Mountain, each of which has peaks at elevations of about
7,900 feet in the Tehachapi Mountain range.
The study area is comprised of all or a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Quad Sheets (7.5 Minute Series) and Sections listed in Table 1-1, Study Area Quad
Sheets, Township, Range and Sections, and which are depicted in Figure 1-3, Study Area
Township, Range, and Sections.
May 2010
1-3
TABLE 1-1Study Area Quad Sheets, Township, Range and Sections
Quadrangle Name
Arvin
Bear Mountain
Cummings Mt.
Keene
Loraine
Monolith
Mt. Diablo Meridian & Base
Township
Range
Sections
32 South
30 East
3,4,9,10,15,16,20,21,22
31 South
30 East
23,24,25,26,27,34,35,36
31 South
31 East
19,20,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35
32 South
30 East
1,2,3,10,11,12,13,14,15,22,23,24
32 South
31 East
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23
32 South
31 East
25,26,35,36
32 South
32 East
25,26,27,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,36
31 South
31 East
26,35,36
31 South
32 East
7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,
31,32,33,34,35,36
32 South
31 East
1,2,11,12,13,14,23,24
32 South
32 East
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,
23,24
31 South
32 East
1,12
31 South
33 East
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
32 South
34 East
28,29,30
Oiler Peak
31 South
32 East
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
Tehachapi NE
32 South
34 East
16,17,18,19,20,21
31 South
32 East
12,13,24,25,36
32 South
32 East
1,12,13,24
31 South
33 East
7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,
28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36
32 South
33 East
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,22,23,24
32 South
34 East
18,19
32 South
32 East
25,36
32 South
33 East
25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36
32 South
34 East
30
32 South
30 East
20,21,22,27,28,29,33,34
32 South
30 East
22,23,24,25,26,27,34,35,36
32 South
31 East
19,20,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35
11 North
15 West
5,6,7,8,17,18
Tehachapi North
Tehachapi South
Tejon Hills
Tejon Ranch
Cummings Mt.
Tehachapi South
Tejon Ranch
May 2010
11 North
16 West
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
12 North
15 West
31,32
12 North
16 West
31,32,33,34,35,36
11 North
14 West
6,7,18
11 North
15 West
1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17
12 North
14 West
31
12 North
15 West
32,33,34,35,36
11 North
16 West
6,7,18
11 North
17 West
1,2,3,11,12
12 North
16 West
31
12 North
17 West
25,26,27,28,29,33,34,35,36
San Bernardino Meridian & Base
1-4
FIGURE 1-1
Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1-2
Specific Plan Boundary Map
FIGURE 1-3
Study Area Township, Range, and Sections
1.2Specific Plan Purpose and Authority
The GTASP is intended to provide for the orderly and efficient development of the
Specific Plan area in accordance with the provisions of the Kern County General
Plan. In conjunction with long-term General Plan goal and policy direction, the
GTASP will serve as the County’s long-range plan for the physical development of the
Greater Tehachapi Area and a guide to all future development within the plan area.
Implementation of General Plan goals and policies will occur through the establishment
of land use designations, circulation patterns, and development policies, and the
definition of backbone infrastructure to support the planned intensity of development.
To achieve this purpose, the Specific Plan has the following objectives:
1. Provide a single comprehensive plan for managing land use development,
infrastructure, open space, and other resources to accommodate projected
population growth, while protecting the existing character of the area and the
area’s natural resources.
2. Establish strategic growth and sustainability principles for land use development
within the study area, recognizing the limited environmental resources available
to support such development.
3. Identify appropriate locations and intensity for development considering
constraints related to water supply, infrastructure availability, and environmental
considerations.
4. Provide policy and implementation direction for the study area to address the
General Plan’s identified growth opportunities and challenges at the local level.
State law (California Government Code Section 65450 et seq.) permits a Specific Plan to
be prepared for any defined geographic area which might benefit from specialized land
use regulations and development standards. In Kern County, Specific Plans are used
to implement the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan in a more detailed
manner, tailored to the unique geographic area of the specific plan.
a) A specific plan shall include text and diagram(s) which specify all
of the following in detail:
1. The distribution, location and extent of the uses of land
including open space within the plan.
2. The proposed distribution, location and extent of major
transportation, sewerage, water, drainage, solid waste
May 2010
The GTASP is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Kern County
General Plan and under the authority granted to the County of Kern in accordance
with the requirements of the California Government Code. Specifically, Section 65451
of the Government Code mandates the following::
1-8
disposal, and energy components, and other essential
facilities proposed to be located within the plan and needed
to support the land uses proposed.
3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed,
and standards for conservation, development and utilization
of natural resources, where applicable.
4. A program of implementation measures including
regulations, programs, public works and financing measures
necessary to carry out the plan.
b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of
the specific plan to the General Plan.
California Government Code allows specific plans to be adopted either by resolution to
establish a policy document or by ordinance to establish a regulatory document. The
GTASP is adopted by the County of Kern via Resolution, creating a policy document to
guide subsequent implementation of the GTASP. A Specific Plan adopted by Resolution
acts as a versatile tool for implementing planning policy by providing a more detailed
direction for development of a specific area. The Specific Plan implements the General
Plan by creating a bridge between General Plan policies and individual development
proposals.
The goals, policies, and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan
are hereby incorporated by reference. When discrepancies exist between the General
Plan and the GTASP, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. The Kern County
Planning Director shall determine which policy is more restrictive should conflicts arise.
1.3 RESCISSION OF EXISTING SPECIFIC PLANS
Map Code 4.1 (Accepted County Plan) Areas
•
Bear Valley Springs
•
Golden Hills
•
Stallion Springs (Stallion Springs Tract 4286 & Stallion Springs Phase II/
Horsethief Canyon)
May 2010
The GTASP seeks to retain the existing patterns of development within the GTA
while creating clear policy guidelines for future development. To achieve this goal, the
following existing Specific Plans and areas designated for future Specific Plans within
the GTA are being rescinded and future development will be subject to the policy
guidelines contained within this document.
1-9
•
Old Towne
•
Monolith
•
North Cummings Valley
•
Keen Rural Community
Map Code 4.3 (Specific Plan Required) Areas
•
Alpine Forest
•
Cummings Peak
•
Cummings Ranch
•
Mackenzie
•
Stallion Springs Phase III
Most of the existing General Plan land use designation codes within these existing
Specific Plans remain unchanged.
1.4Specific Plan Preparation Process
The GTASP planning effort included four basic tasks:
1. Conduct research on, accumulate and consolidate known information on existing
environmental conditions into Existing Conditions Reports, with special
consideration for water availability;
2. Ensure adequate public outreach and incorporation of community vision into
the plan;
May 2010
The preparation of the GTASP required a significant amount of research, analysis,
discussion, and public outreach. In order to provide a comprehensive and complete
Specific Plan, it was first necessary to fully understand the region’s history, existing
conditions, prior planning efforts, environmental constraints, future development
expectations, and the vision of the GTA’s stakeholders for the future of the area. To
gain the necessary knowledge to complete this plan, a substantial public outreach
effort was conducted, numerous discussions were held with individuals involved with
current and past area planning efforts, and existing conditions reports were prepared
covering numerous topic areas. Data was collected and evaluated from multiple sources,
including: existing planning documents such as the Kern County General Plan and
Specific Plans within the GTA, the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS),
the U.S. Census Bureau, local Community Services Districts (CSDs), Kern COG, local
water districts, and others. Data evaluation was conducted with significant input from
local agencies, including the County Assessor and local Community Services Districts,
to establish reasonable, reliable predictions for future growth and development.
1-10
3. Prepare a policy-level Specific Plan document for the GTA; and
4. Prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR).
1.4.1Existing Conditions Reports
The County prepared 13 Existing Conditions Reports for the GTA. These reports
provided a temporal snapshot of issues and data that helped to establish a baseline for
the proposed specific plan and environmental review. The reports cover the following
topic areas:
•
Agriculture/Urban Compatibility
•
Public Services & Facilities/Utilities
•
Water Supply & Sewer Availability
•
Transportation/Circulation
•
Noise
•
Air Quality
•
Biological Resources
•
Cultural Resources
•
Paleontological Resources
•
Geotechnical Environment
•
Hydrology & Water Quality
•
Flooding
•
Fiscal/Financial Background
1.4.2Public Outreach
The first Public Outreach program yielded the following key input points:
•
Concern over water availability.
•
Concern over water quality.
•
Concern over traffic congestion on SR-202 related to California Correctional
Institute (CCI).
May 2010
Public participation is a key element in creating a Specific Plan that addresses citizen
concerns and visions for their community. The County held two public outreach
programs. The first Public Outreach program was held on July 9, 2008 to present the
findings of the above Existing Conditions Reports to the public. The second Public
Outreach program was held on August 23, 2008 to solicit public participation in a
regional land use planning exercise for designed to identify issues important to the
community and foster public discussion.
1-11
•
Desire to expand the tax base of the area to support infrastructure services.
•
Concern over air quality degradation.
The second Public Outreach Program yielded the following key input points:
•
Preservation of the rural character and quality of life in the GTA by ensuring
adequate public services and facilities, and preservation of agriculture and open
space.
•
Direct new development to existing communities and/or the city of Tehachapi
and its sphere.
•
Ensure that new development pays for and is served by adequate public services
and facilities.
•
Preserve agriculture in the Cummings Valley by promoting viable farming
activities such as wineries, organic farming and agritourism.
•
Allow higher density/cluster development in exchange for agricultural preservation
in Cummings Valley.
•
Promote sustainability and environmental protection in the GTA.
1.4.3Specific Plan
The GTASP establishes planning goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide
future growth and ensure sustainability of the GTA from 2010 to 2035. The GTASP
incorporates the County’s role of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its
citizens, a respect for private property rights, the maintenance of an environmental
balance between conservation and people, and common sense. The GTASP is based
on the findings of the Existing Conditions Reports, public input, the population and
housing forecasts provided from Kern COG for the GTA, and the Kern County General
Plan’s identified growth opportunities and challenges. The GTASP is also consistent
with the standards and policies established in the various adopted elements of the Kern
County General Plan as well as other applicable ordinances and regulations, such as
zoning, land division, health, building codes, and development standards.
Adoption of a Specific Plan constitutes a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The County determined that the GTASP requires the preparation
of a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) to satisfy CEQA
requirements. A Program EIR is prepared for an agency program or series of actions
that can be characterized as one large project such as the GTASP. The GTASP Program
EIR analyzed the broad environmental effects of the project growth and development
patterns identified in the GTASP. The GTASP Program EIR will serve as a first-tier
CEQA document.
May 2010
1.4.4Program EIR
1-12
1.5Background
1.5.1History of Study Area
The GTA has a rich and varied history. The first local settlers in the region were
American Indian tribes, the ancestors of whom likely arrived in the area by 8000 B.C.
The three major tribes in the GTA were the Kawaiisu, the Southern Yokuts, and the
Kitanemuk. In 1854, John and Amanda Brite became the first permanent settlers of
the Tehachapi area in what is known today as Brite Valley. In the 1860s, the downtown
area of Tehachapi was named Williamsburg after a Lieutenant R. G. Williamson who
conducted a survey for the railroad in 1853. Lt. Williamson encountered local American
Indians who informed him that the name of a creek near their camp was “Tah-ee-chaypah.” In 1875, another part of the downtown area was called Greenwich after a Peter
Green.
The Southern Pacific Railroad bypassed Williamsburg and Greenwich in favor of a place
called Tehachapi Summit. Tehachapi Summit was shortened to Tehachapi and the City
of Tehachapi was incorporated in 1909. Greenwich became known as Old Towne. The
Monolith cement plant northeast of the City of Tehachapi has been in operation since
1908 and provided cement for William Mulholland’s 1913 Los Angeles Aqueduct and for
portions of the Hoover Dam.
The Greater Tehachapi region has historically included the city and surrounding
scattered farms and ranches. Starting in the 1960s, rural planned communities, including
Golden Hills, Bear Valley Springs, and Stallion Springs, were developed as second home
destination resorts. These communities now consist predominantly of year-round
residents. Other distinctive rural communities are also dispersed throughout the GTA.
The GTASP study area lies at the convergence of the southern Sierra Nevada and
Tehachapi Mountains. In the middle of this rugged high desert and mountainous terrain
are the valleys of Tehachapi, Cummings, Brite, and Bear. Elevations in the study area
range from a low of approximately 3,820 feet in the western Tehachapi Valley to a high
of approximately 7,900 feet at the peaks of Tehachapi and Double Mountains along the
southern boundary.
The higher elevations of the study area support a variety of coniferous forests which
contain predominantly evergreen tree species of a needle-leaved or scaled-leaved variety.
Lower elevations support dense brush and Pinyon pines on lower slopes, as well as oak
May 2010
1.5.2Physical Character of GTASP Study Area
1-13
trees, willows, native grasses and shrubs in flatter areas and on canyon bottoms. The
easterly portion of the study area fronts the Mojave Desert and is sparsely forested at
higher elevations while lower elevations support chaparral, pinyon pine, and juniper
tree species.
The GTA is comprised of three watersheds that drain into the three groundwater basins
that are within the boundaries of the study area. The Tejon Creek watershed occupies
the western portion of the GTA and drains the Cummings Valley and a portion of
the Brite Valley to the west via Chanac Creek and Tejon Creek. The Tehachapi Creek
watershed occupies the north and central portions of the GTA and drains the western
Tehachapi Valley and a portion of Brite Valley to the northwest via Tehachapi Creek.
The East Tehachapi Valley watershed occupies the eastern portion of the GTA and
drains the eastern Tehachapi Valley easterly via Cache Creek into the Mojave Desert.
Climatic conditions are characterized by warm summers and moderately cold winters,
with temperatures ranging from 100 degrees Fahrenheit or greater in the summer to as
low as sub-zero temperatures in the winter. Precipitation averages approximately 10
inches per year. The prevailing wind flows from the San Joaquin Valley easterly into the
Mojave Desert.
Existing development in the GTA consists largely of rural and semi-rural communities
spread throughout the region. Population densities are generally low, with most housing
consisting of single-family homes. The largest community in the region is the city of
Tehachapi. Additional information on the built environment of the GTA is found in
Section 1.5.4, Greater Tehachapi Communities.
1.5.3Existing Development and General Plan Build-out Capacity
The existing General Plan build-out capacity is calculated at 44,300 dwelling units.
This capacity represents maximum build-out assuming every existing parcel of land
in the GTA will be developed in accordance with the maximum potential development
allowed by the current General Plan land use designations. This “maximum build-out”
capacity represents a theoretical development of the General Plan without applying
known physical and environmental constraint overlays to the map code designations.
Physical constraints may include steep slopes, seismic hazards, landslides, shallow
groundwater, and flood hazards. Actual build-out capacity of sites that are subject to
such physical constraints would likely be reduced.
May 2010
Zoning-based parcel data was collected from the County Assessor’s Office in 2008 which
demonstrated that existing development totaled 8,754 occupied residential units within
the GTA. This current unit count is utilized as a baseline for all subsequent study area
build-out analyses.
1-14
A more realistic General Plan build-out scenario would apply known physical and
environmental constraints overlays to the Map Code designations; however, not all
constraints are known at this time, and some will only be identified when a specific
development proposal is submitted and focused environmental studies are prepared. In
addition to physical and environmental constraints, other development-limiting factors
would include cost considerations for extending roads, utilities, and infrastructure to
more remote parts of the study area.
Whether the General Plan build-out is assumed to be the theoretical 44,300 dwelling
units or a number even 25 percent lower due to development constraints, that magnitude
of development would represent a significant change in the existing rural development
character of the GTA.
1.5.4Greater Tehachapi Communities
The GTA offers a variety of lifestyle communities with distinctively rural characters in
the unincorporated GTA as shown on Figure 1-4, Greater Tehachapi Area Communities.
Some of the existing and planned communities were designed via a Specific Plan. Those
areas with an approved Specific Plan have a defined boundary, as shown in Figure 1-5,
Previously Adopted Specific Plans. Each of the communities has a unique history and
plays an important role in the GTA’s present and future.
Existing Communities (at the time the GTASP was adopted)
The Golden Hills area is subject to the Golden Hills Specific Plan and which is based on
the Boise-Cascade Properties, Inc. Golden Hills Master Plan adopted in 1965. Golden
Hills was originally subdivided in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a recreational
second-home community with an 18-hole championship golf course, stables, horse trail
easements, and green belts. The predominant land use is large-lot residential development
with an urban core center (commercial uses) near SR-202 and Golden Hills Boulevard.
A majority of the residents in Golden Hills are now permanent residents. The Golden
Hills Community Service District (GHCSD) provides water and wastewater services
for the higher density areas of Golden Hills. According to the GHCSD’s Projections
of Golden Hills Future Connections, Undeveloped Lots, and Population report prepared
in 2008, there are 3,992 developed and undeveloped lots within the boundaries of the
Golden Hills Specific Plan. The GHCSD has estimated a population of 8,276 and 2,864
households (based on utility connections) for 2008.
May 2010
Golden Hills
1-15
FIGURE 1-4
Greater Tehachapi Area Communities
FIGURE 1-5
Previously Adopted Specific Plans
Bear Valley Springs
Bear Valley Springs is a private, gated community with approximately 3,500 home
sites on approximately 25,000 acres. The Fickert family settled on 160 acres in Bear
Valley in 1869 and expanded their holdings to approximately 25,000 acres by 1900.
The Fickert Ranch was purchased by Dart Resorts in the early 1960s for a second
home destination resort. The Bear Valley Springs Specific Plan was adopted in 1973.
Amenities include a community and recreation center, an equestrian center, two lakes,
horse trails, a country club and golf course, a small commercial center, and a post
office. The original concept of a second home destination has slowly changed over the
years to a predominantly full-time residential community. The Bear Valley Springs
Community Services District (BVCSD) is a nonprofit organization that provides water,
wastewater, solid waste disposal, road maintenance, and police protection services. The
Bear Valley Springs Property Owners Association administers parks and recreation
services. The elevation of Bear Valley Springs ranges from 4,118 feet to 6,934 feet at
Bear Mountain. The 2000 Census population for Bear Valley Springs was 4,313, with
2,199 total households.
Stallion Springs
The Stallion Springs development was originally begun in the late 1960s as a resort/
second home community with approximately 2,000 lots, a golf course, a country club,
and an equestrian center. In 1980 a Specific Plan and a tract map (Tract 4286) were
approved for an approximately 90-acre portion of the Stallion Springs development,
allowing 257 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and a small
commercial area. In 1983, the Stallion Springs Phase II/Horsethief Flat Specific Plan
was approved, adding over 10,000 acres and 2,441 dwelling units to the potential buildout of the Stallion Springs community. A Stallion Springs Phase III has also been
proposed and would add an additional 6,000 acres and approximately 300 dwelling
units to the overall Stallion Springs development. To date, no specific plan has been
approved for the Stallion Springs Phase III proposal. The Stallion Springs Community
Service District (SSCSD) provides water and wastewater services, solid waste disposal,
and police and fire protection to the area. The 2000 Census population was 1,633, with
771 housing units.
The Old Towne Specific Plan was adopted in 1983 and updated in 1992 for this
community, which consists of 982-acres. The Old Towne Specific Plan area is bounded
on the north by Cummings Valley Boulevard, the west by Backus Road, the south by
Highline Road, and the east by Robinson Street. The estimated buildout population
was 1,902 persons. The Old Towns Specific Plan lists designates 537 acres for residential
land use for up to 827 dwelling units, 119 acres of commercial, 131 acres of industrial,
May 2010
Old Towne
1-18
174 acres of resource reserve, and 21 acres of park and flood control facilities. Old
Towne is known for its extensive Valley Oaks and was the original site for the town of
Tehachapi. Old Towne also has the most commercial and industrial land use designations
of the existing Specific Plans.
North Cummings Valley
The North Cummings Valley Specific Plan was adopted in 1973 for 264 low-density
residences on 800 acres (one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres) out of a total of 3,226 acres. The
area is south of Bear Valley Springs. The remaining acreage remained in agriculture.
This area is still sparsely developed with very-low-density rural residential uses.
Monolith
The Monolith Specific Plan was adopted in 1983 for 263 acres of relatively flat land
between Tehachapi Boulevard and the Union Pacific/Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(UP/BNSF) railroad right-of-way on the north, SR-58 on the south, and Tehachapi
Willow Springs Road on the west. Monolith is located about 1/2 mile southwest of the
LeHigh Cement Monolith Plant. Permitted land uses include a mobilehome park on 34
acres, a light industrial park on 229 acres, and open space. Only the mobilehome park
has been developed. Waste disposal is by septic system.
Mendiburu Springs
The Mendiburu Springs Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1984 with the latest
revision in 1995. The Mendiburu Springs Specific Plan is a low-density residential
development on approximately 817 acres in proximity to the Mountain Valley Airport.
Mendiburu Springs is approximately a mile southeast of the city of Tehachapi and is
within the city of Tehachapi’s sphere of influence. No development has occurred in this
Specific Plan area.
Other Rural Communities (at the time the GTASP was adopted)
Alpine Forest Park is a mountain community in the Tehachapi Mountains located north
of Banducci and Lemans Roads. Alpine Forest is designated Specific Plan Required
(4.3) in the County’s General Plan. Alpine Forest Park encompasses approximately
5,000 acres with approximately 1,100 lots up to 20 acres in size on elevations from 4,600
to 6,600 feet. Water to a limited number of homes is provided by the Alpine Forest Park
Mutual Water Company. The Alpine Forest Park Mutual Water Company estimates 210
water service connections and a population of 600 for 2008. Other lots must be served
by private wells because of the lack of water infrastructure. Roads are semi-private.
May 2010
Alpine Forest
1-19
Electricity is not available to portions of Alpine Forest. Waste disposal is by septic
system.
Brite Valley
Brite Valley is located near the southern boundary of the GTA between the Cummings
and Tehachapi Valleys. Brite Valley includes a few active ranches, orchards, some older
homes, and other rural development. Most development in Brite Valley is on parcels
of five to 20 acres in size. Brite Valley includes the 90-acre Brite Lake (also known as
Jacobsen Lake), a man-made lake by the Tehachapi Cummings County Water District
(TCCWD) and operated by the Tehachapi Valley Parks and Recreation District. Brite
Lake is used for groundwater storage and recharge by the TCCWD, and also serves
irrigation, domestic, and recreational uses.
Cummings Valley
The Cummings Valley is located in the western portion of the GTA between Bear Valley
Springs to the north, Stallion Springs to the south, and the Brite and Tehachapi Valleys
to the east. The California Correctional Institute (CCI) is located in the eastern portion
of the Cummings Valley. The Cummings Valley is an active farming and ranching area.
Fairview Ranches
Fairview Ranches is a rural large-lot subdivision at the west end of the Cummings Valley
between Bear Valley Springs and Stallion Springs. The Fairview Ranches development
is bounded by Cummings Valley Road on the north, Sasia Road on the west, Giraudo
Road on the south, and Del Mar Drive on the west. The roads in Fairview Ranches and
the surrounding area are mostly unimproved.
Mountain Meadows
Mountain Meadows is a very-low-density rural development (lots greater than 2.5 acres)
just south of the city of Tehachapi and Highline Road. The area is at an elevation
higher than the city’s and residents enjoy panoramic views.
Oak Knolls is located north of Golden Hills. Oak Knolls has large-lot, low-density rural
development with septic systems. Land uses are residential, and homes are served by
a modified grid system of unimproved roads. Access is via Woodford Tehachapi Road.
May 2010
Oak Knolls
1-20
Old West Ranch
Old West Ranch is a remote community located in the southeast corner of the GTA.
Development is very rural, with no access to the regional electricity grid or water
system. Homes are generally powered by solar energy or onsite generators. The area is
served by unimproved roads.
1.6Specific Plan Structure
•
The Land Use Element designates the proposed type, intensity, distribution,
location, pattern, character, and extent of existing and future land uses. At its
core, the Land Use Element identifies existing and entitled development as well
as the vision for future growth in the GTA.
•
The Open Space & Conservation Element addresses the conservation and
management of the many natural resources in the GTA. These resources include
scenic and natural resources, biological resources, cultural and paleontological
resources, mineral resources, open space, and air quality. It also addresses water
quality, water supply, water conservation, and sewer availability for the GTA’s
current and future water and wastewater needs.
•
The Circulation Element correlates directly with the Land Use Element and
identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed vehicular and
non-vehicular circulation facilities such as highways and streets, transportation
routes, airports, railroad operations, and alternative transportation modes.
•
The Safety Element addresses natural and man-made hazards such as seismically
induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, dam failure, slope
instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence, liquefaction and other
seismic hazards, flooding, and wildland and urban fires.
•
The Noise Element identifies ambient noise levels, noise sources, noise problems,
noise standards, and implementation measures for noise pollution in the GTA.
•
The Sustainability Element addresses sustainability and smart growth principles
for the GTA. The Sustainability Element educates and promotes sustainable
growth and energy practices that will preserve the sense of place and character
of the GTA for future generations.
•
The Housing Element incorporates the Kern County General Plan Housing
Element by reference.
May 2010
The GTASP is organized into eight elements containing issues and assumptions, goals,
policies, and implementation measures to guide subsequent land use and development
actions within the GTA. The Plan addresses the seven required General Plan elements
and includes a Sustainability element, described as follows:
1-21
Each of the elements is organized in the following format:
1. Purpose and Contents, describing the purpose and focus as well as contents of each
element.
2. Assumptions and Issues, describing assumptions and issues within the element
focus that identify needs, concerns or desires to be addressed in future planning
and development actions within the Plan area.
3. Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures, identifying the Plan’s approach
toward addressing the planning issues and achieving the Plan’s vision for future
development. Goals serve as guides to future decisions that affect development
within the Plan area, and policies serve as specific steps toward implementation
of the Plan. Goals and policies in the various elements are interrelated and should
be viewed comprehensively.
1.7Acronyms & Abbreviations
May 2010
1-22
Chapter 2
land use
2.1Purpose AND Scope
The Greater Tehachapi Area (GTA) is a collection of individually planned rural
communities that have developed over the last 30 to 40 years. These existing Specific
Plans, or “special treatment areas” are shown in Figure 2-1, Special Treatment Areas. The
rural communities within the GTA have grown in recent years due to a steady increase
in population throughout Kern County and a desire for a rural living environment as
an alternative to typical urban/suburban lifestyle settings. The Land Use Element of
the Greater Tehachapi Specific Plan (GTASP) addresses the anticipated growth within
the study area, sets forth goals and policies to guide the land use development decisionmaking process, and provides a comprehensive land use plan and development criteria
to direct growth to desired areas where urban services can be provided while minimizing
potential impacts on natural resources.
The GTASP Land Use Element designates the proposed distribution, pattern, character,
and extent of land uses in the GTA, including anticipated population density and
building intensity. At its core, the Land Use Element provides a vision and direction
for future growth and development in the GTA, with the supporting policies and
implementation measures necessary to effectively achieve the defined planning goals.
Upon adoption of the GTASP, this Land Use Element becomes the comprehensive and
unified guiding land use document for the GTA.
The Kern County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Land Division Ordinance and the
various Kern County Development Standards provide guidance for development within
the GTA. In addition, the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
provides guidance as to compatible development permitted adjacent to area airports.
The GTASP works in tandem with the Kern County General Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
Land Division Ordinance, various Development Standards and ALUCP to guide land
use decisions.
May 2010
CHAPTER 2 Land Use Element
The GTASP incorporates the relevant development plans, goals, policies, and
implementation measures of the previously adopted Golden Hills, Monolith, and
Stallion Springs Specific Plans, except as these existing plans may be affected by
updated environmental constraints data, or if the land use designations are inconsistent
with the Kern County General Plan method of designating land uses. Although these
plans are rescinded with the adoption of the GTASP, a majority of the underlying
existing land use designations are retained. The GTASP does not modify any existing
zoning classifications.
2-2
2.1.1Baseline Conditions
For the preparation of the GTASP, the County embarked upon an exhaustive study
of the GTA in order to determine the existing uses and designations already in place,
and to project future development levels. This process included site visits; community
outreach meetings; a review of past planning documents prepared by the County, Kern
COG, local CSDs, local water districts, and the City of Tehachapi; and an analysis of
U.S. Census data and County GIS data. Additionally, significant input was received from
local agencies. This input was useful in the development of forecasts of future conditions
by providing information on development constraints imposed by infrastructure and
environmental conditions, particularly the regional water supply.
2.1.2 Existing Development
Approximately 78 percent of existing development within the GTA is in communities
and previous Specific Plan areas. There are approximately 8,754 existing dwelling units
(DUs) and 15,617 parcels within the 175,671 acres of the GTA, based on the County’s
2008 GIS parcel data. The locations and extent of existing residential development
within the GTA are depicted in Figure 2-2, Distribution of Homes in the GTA.
Table 2-1, Existing Specific Plans in the GTA, summarizes the current (2008) number of
units and the maximum number of units in these areas, based on the adopted specific
plans. The maximum allowed units in the existing specific plan areas have not been fully
realized despite the plans being approved more than 25 years ago in some cases. Even
with the rapid rise of real estate values that occurred in the early-to-mid 2000s, the
build out of these communities did not occur due to a combination of factors including
lack of necessary infrastructure, environmental constraints, and development costs.
May 2010
Although the existing communities provide for some medium density residential
development, the majority of existing residential development is on parcel sizes of 1 acre
or larger. It is estimated that approximately 18 percent of the 8,754 existing dwelling
units within the GTA are developed on parcels 1 acre or smaller. The predominance of
lower density development (large lot sizes) reflects the rural character of the study area
and the stated preference of existing residents through the public outreach process
which was held in 2008.
2-3
FIGURE 2-1
Special Treatment Areas
FIGURE 2-2
Distribution of Homes in the GTA
TABLE 2-1Existing Specific Plans in the GTA
Number of Units
Specific Plan (4.1)1
Bear Valley Springs (1973)
Golden Hills (1984)
Keene Rural Community (rev. 1991)
25,000
2,670
6,8053
5,979
3,433
10,433
550
42
514
817
0
959
263
80
238
3,226
130
269
982
90
827
Stallion Springs Tract 4286 (1980)
Stallion Springs Phase II (1984)
Total 4.1
3
Maximum
Mendiburu Springs (rev. 1995)
Old Towne (rev. 1992)
2
Existing
20082
Monolith (1983)
North Cummings Valley (1973)
1
Acres
90
157
257
10,391
0
2,760
47,298
6,602
23,062
All data is from the respective specific plans unless otherwise noted.
County GIS, 2008.
The Bear Valley Springs Specific Plan does not establish a maximum unit count. DU projection based on existing
zoning classifications.
A total of approximately 144 acres of land within the GTA have a commercial (Map
Code 6.1-6.3) General Plan land use designation. Much of this area serves commercial
recreation purposes, such as golf courses and country clubs; other commercial uses
include small retail facilities such as convenience stores, restaurants, hotels, plant
nurseries, and various other activities. Commercial activity in the Greater Tehachapi
region is generally concentrated within or near the city of Tehachapi. Facilities
located in the city include offices, supermarkets, “big box” stores, smaller retail stores,
restaurants, hotels, and a range of other retail and service businesses.
Figure 2-3, Agriculture Preserves, illustrates the County’s Agriculture Preserve
boundaries within the GTA. There are four agricultural preserves (numbers 17, 18,
and 23, and a small portion of 19) within the GTA. Agriculture Preserves allow local
jurisdictions to designate priority areas for farmland and open space conservation. The
establishment of a preserve indicates the willingness of the jurisdiction to enroll parcels
within the preserve under Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965)
contract provisions. Current Williamson Act contract acreage within the GTA is 52,460
acres, or approximately 30 percent of the GTA.
May 2010
The area is known for its rural/agricultural character, and “agritourism” is occurring
within the GTA, where local farms and ranches are open to the public who can come
and buy various types of produce. However, operating agricultural land uses make up a
very small portion of the GTA. There are approximately 3,185 acres in crops, of which
the great majority (89 percent) is turf/sod and oats. The primary area for agriculture
production within the GTA is within the Cummings Valley area.
2-6
Figure 2-4, Williamson Act Contract Lands, shows the land classifications for areas that
are currently under Williamson Act contracts in the GTA. Of the total enrolled acreage
of 52,460, approximately 2,070 acres are designated Prime Farmland. No Farmland
Security Zone (FSZ) contract lands are present in the GTA.
Table 2-2, Acreages of Williamson Act Contract Lands and Agriculture Preserves, provides
the number of parcels and acreages of Williamson Act Contract lands and agriculture
preserves in the GTA.
TABLE 2-2Acreages of Williamson Act Contract Lands and Agriculture Preserves
Williamson Act Contract Lands in GTASP
Kern County
Agricultural
Preserve No.
Land
Classification
17
Non-Prime
104
28,149
Prime
44
1,923
Non-Prime
18
19
23
No. of Enrolled
Parcels
Enrolled
Acreage
188
19,397
Mixed
2
328
Non-Prime
29
1,302
Prime
4
147
Non-Prime
14
1,214
385
52,460
TOTALS
Total Acreage
Eligible for
Contracts
GTASP Area
in Agricultural
Preserve
Boundary
42,882
50,704
41,472
85,821
1,326
1,445
3,900
37,724
89,580
175,694
2.1.3 Existing Land Use Classifications
The Physical Constraints designations, comprising Map Codes 2.1 through 2.11, are
overlay designations and are always combined with the other land use designations on
the General Plan land use maps. For this reason, their respective acreages are shown
in Table 2-4, Existing County Physical Constraints Overlay Designations, and are not
compiled into the acreage totals found in Table 2-2. Almost all of the GTA is subject to
constraint overlay designations, which reflects the extensive environmental constraints
that will influence the extent of land use development. The most widespread constraint
overlay is Fire Hazard (Map Code 2.6), which covers the entire GTA with the exception
of selected agricultural areas in the Cummings Valley and small areas in the immediate
vicinity of the city of Tehachapi. Previously adopted specific plan areas have not
been mapped with physical constraint overlays, but may nonetheless include physical
conditions that would impede or be hazardous to development.
May 2010
Table 2-3, Existing County Land Use Map Code Designations, shows the existing land
use categories, total acreages, and the percent total of each major land use Map Code(s)
for the GTA. Overall, Resource (54.5 percent) and Special Treatment Areas/existing
communities (34.1 percent) land use designations make up almost 89 percent of the
GTA.
2-7
FIGURE 2-3
Agriculture Preserves
FIGURE 2-4
Williamson Act Contract Lands
TABLE 2-3Existing County Land Use Map Code Designations
Acreage in GTA
(approximate)
Land Use Designation by Map Code
1
1.1
Percent of Total GTA
Acreage
Non-Jurisdictional
State or Federal Land
4,637
2.6%
Non-Jurisdictional Subtotal
4,637
2.6%
2
Physical Constraints Overlay
Map Codes 2.1 – 2.11 overlay other map codes. See Table 2-4 for detailed breakdown.
3
Public Facilities
Public or Private Recreation Areas
1,147
0.7%
3.3
Other Facilities
484
0.3%
3.4
Solid Waste Facilities
232
0.1%
3.7
Other Waste Facilities – Nonhazardous/Nondisposal
Public Facilities Subtotal
4
13
<0.1%
1,875
1.1%
Special Treatment Areas
4.1
Accepted County Plan Areas
47,447
27.0%
4.3
Specific Plan Required
12,541
7.1%
59,989
34.1%
188
0.1%
Special Treatment Areas Subtotal
5
5.1
Residential
Maximum 29 units/net acre
5.2
7
<0.1%
5.3
101
0.1%
5.4
1,016
0.6%
5.5
Maximum 1 unit/net acre
1,563
0.9%
5.6
Minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit
5,043
2.9%
5.7
Minimum 5 gross acres/unit
1,968
1.1%
5.8
Residential Subtotal
6
6.1
3,157
1.8%
13,047
7.4%
1
<0.1%
Commercial
Regional Commercial
6.2
General Commercial
141
0.1%
6.3
Highway Commercial
2
<0.1%
144
0.1%
10
<0.1%
Commercial Subtotal
7
Industrial
7.1
Light Industrial
7.2
Service Industrial
75
<0.1%
7.3
Heavy Industrial
107
0.1%
193
0.1%
Industrial Subtotal
8
Resource
8.1
Intensive Agriculture (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
4,628
2.6%
8.2
Resource Reserve (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
40,933
23.3%
8.3
Extensive Agriculture (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
37,987
21.6%
8.4
Mineral and Petroleum (Min. 5 acre parcel size)
7,468
4.3%
8.5
Resource Management (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
Resource Subtotal
TOTAL
Source: County GIS, 2008.
May 2010
4,770
2.7%
95,786
54.5%
175,671
100%
3.1
2-10
TABLE 2-4Existing County Physical Constraints Overlays Classifications and
Acreages
2
2.1
Acreage in GTA
(approximate)
Percent of Total
GTA Acreage
Seismic Hazard
2.2
Landslide
2.4
Steep Slope
2.5
Flood Hazard
1,320
0.8%
261
0.1%
80,739
45.9%
1,307
0.7%
2.1.4Land Use Designation System for the Specific Plan
All parcels within the GTA are assigned a single base Map Code, but may in addition
be assigned one or more overlay Map Codes. Overlay Map Codes are established where
there are physical constraints to development. Six overlay Map Codes are found
within the GTA; of these, four are discussed in the General Plan. The General Plan
allows individual specific plans to create new Map Codes for constraints that impact
the specific plan area. This document includes two such GTA-specific Map Codes: 2.6
(Fire Hazard) and 2.7 (Liquefaction Risk). These new Map Codes are intended to alert
property owners, County staff, and others about potential risks to parts of the GTA
resulting from wildfires and liquefaction. Additional information on these overlay
zones is provided in Chapter 5, Safety Element. Areas designated with Map Code 2.6 are
mapped on Figure 5-6, Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Areas designated with Map Code 2.7
are mapped on Figure 5-3, Liquefaction Risk Areas.
Figure 2-5, Land Use Plan, illustrates the land use Map Code designations by location
for the GTASP. Due to the overall size of the study area, additional detail maps have
been provided as show on Figure 2-6, Detail Areas, and as described below:
May 2010
To maintain consistency with other County planning documents, the GTASP utilizes
the land use designations (Map Codes) established in the Kern County General Plan. The
purpose of the land use designations is to identify the types and nature of development
allowed on all properties within the specific plan area. The designations are necessarily
broad in scope to address the variety of land uses throughout the County; additional
details regarding specific development standards are provided in the County’s Zoning
Ordinance. This chapter contains discussion regarding the specific implementation
of these designations within the GTA Specific Plan Area, with the exception of NonJurisdictional Land (1.1 - 1.2) and Public Facilities (3.1 - 3.7.1) which are discussed
in the Kern County General Plan. It is not the purpose of this plan to expand upon
the specificity of these designations; therefore, the descriptions for Non-Jurisdictional
Land (1.1 - 1.2) and Public Facilities (3.1 - 3.7.1) are incorporated by reference.
2-11
•
Figure 2-7, Detail Area 1 – Bear Valley Springs
•
Figure 2-8, Detail Area 2 – Alpine Forest and Keene Rural Community
•
Figure 2-9, Detail Area 3 – Golden Hills and Old Towne
Table 2-5, GTASP Land Use Designation System, contains a detailed description
of the intended uses for each Map Code designation. Table 2-6, GTASP Land Use
Designations and Acreages, summarizes land use totals for base Map Codes resulting
from implementation of the GTASP. Overlay map codes impacting the area are listed in
Table 2-7, GTASP Physical Constraints Overlays Classifications and Acreages.
TABLE 2-5GTASP Land Use Designation System
Land Use
Classification
General Description
NONJURISDICTIONAL
1.1
State or
Federal Land
Applied to all property under the ownership and control of the various State
and federal agencies operating in Kern County (military, U.S. Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of Energy, etc.).
1.2
Incorporated
Cities
Used to identify the areas of cities within the County, which are responsible
for the preparation and maintenance of their own General Plans.
2.1
Seismic
Hazard
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and other active fault zones.
2.2
Landslide
Areas of down-slope ground movement identified in Kern County Seismic
Hazard Atlas.
2.3
Shallow
Groundwater
Groundwater within 15 feet of the land surface is delineated on the Kern
County Seismic Hazard Atlas.
2.4
Steep Slope
Land with an average slope of 30 percent or steeper.
2.5
Flood Hazard
Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A), as identified on the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and supplemented by floodplain delineating maps that have been approved
by the Kern County Engineering and Survey Services Department.
2.6
Fire Hazard
High fire risk areas adjacent to wildlands and National Forest lands.
2.7
Liquefaction
Risk
Areas with an above-average risk of liquefaction due to geology and soil type.
2.10
Nearby Waste
Facility
Areas which are not owned by the waste facility that are within 1,320 feet of
a permitted solid waste disposal facility (Map Code 3.4).
2.11
Burn Dump
Hazard
A site where municipal solid waste has been burned at low temperature and
the residual burn ash and debris have been landfilled or stockpiled on site.
Burn dumps typically contain little biodegradable organic material because
of the combustion of waste materials and the age of the sites. Therefore,
typically little or no landfill gas is being generated at burn dumpsites. Farm
and ranch dumpsites are excluded from this designation.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.1
Public or
Private
Recreation
Areas
May 2010
Existing public and private recreation facilities and park areas. The purpose
of this designation is to provide a wide variety of facilities to serve the many
recreational interests of County residents. Permitted uses shall include, but
are not limited to, public and private parks containing facilities for day use,
hiking, camping, walking, picnicking, riding, and other recreational activities.
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OVERLAY
2-12
Land Use
Classification
General Description
3.2
Educational
Facilities
Existing public and private educational facilities. Permitted uses include,
but are not limited to, public and private educational facilities of all levels,
including higher education institutions, and some recreational facilities, such
as neighborhood parks.
3.3
Other Facilities
Existing facilities used for public or semi-public services. Permitted uses
include, but are not limited to, airports, sewer farms, treatment plants, and
water spreading areas.
3.4
Solid Waste
Facilities
Existing or planned public, semi-public, or private municipal solid waste
facilities, organic waste disposal facilities, and segregated waste stream
disposal facilities. (see Appendix E of KCGP)
3.4.1 Solid Waste
Disposal
Facility Buffer
Areas, which are owned by the solid waste disposal facility, within 1,320 feet
of a permitted disposal area as defined by the 3.4 Map Code designation (see
Appendix E of KCGP).
3.5
Hazardous
Permitted land uses include the primary activity of surface disposal of
Waste Disposal hazardous waste. There are no compatible uses. This map code applies to
land within the facility perimeter.
Facilities
Land Disposal
Method
3.6
Permitted land uses include a deep injection well for disposal of hazardous
Hazardous
Waste Disposal wastes as a primary activity. There are no compatible uses. This map code
applies to land within the facility perimeter.
Facilities
Underground
Injection
Method
3.7
Other Waste
Facilities –
Nonhazardous/
Nondisposal
Non-hazardous waste facilities which manage and process various types
of waste materials but do not have on-site disposal. Examples include but
are not limited to large and medium volume transfer facilities; materials
recovery facilities; composting facilities (green waste and biosolids); wood
waste (chipping and grinding facilities); tire recycling; soil remediation;
transformation facilities; ash operations and facilities as defined in §17376 of
Title 14; and construction and demolition recycling (see Appendix F of KCGP).
3.7.1
Other Waste
Facilities
Buffer
Areas which are owned by the waste facility, restricted by easement, or have
a compatible use to the waste facility within 200 foot of a permitted waste
area as defined by the 3.7 land use designation or for a commercial organic
composting and transformation facilities a minimum buffer of 660 foot shall
be required (see Appendix F of KCGP).
5.1
Maximum 29
units/net acre
Designed to allow high-density apartments and condominiums in proximity to
and within walking distance of urban commercial centers, with a minimum of
1,502 square feet of site area per unit, yielding a maximum of 29 units per
net acre.
5.2
Maximum 16
units/net acre
Primarily intended for small multiple-family structures such as duplexes,
triplexes, and mobilehome parks which require a full array of urban services,
with a minimum of 2,722 square feet of site area per unit and yielding a
maximum of 16 units per net acre in conformance with precise development,
cluster, or other special planning ordinance standards.
5.3
Maximum 10
units/net acre
This category is designed to accommodate urban single-family development
on lots with a minimum average size of 4,356 square feet (1/10 of an acre),
yielding a maximum of 10 units per net acre in conformance with precise
development, cluster, or other special planning ordinance standards.
May 2010
RESIDENTIAL
2-13
Land Use
Classification
General Description
5.4
Maximum 4
units/net acre
on lots with a minimum average size of 1/4 net acre.
5.45
Maximum 2
units/net acre
on lots with a minimum average size of 2 net acre.
5.5
Maximum 1
unit/net acre
This constitutes a single-family designation with rural service needs in the
valley and desert regions, while in the mountain region, residential uses of
this density will require urban service provision.
5.6
Minimum 2.5
gross acres/
unit
This constitutes a single-family designation with rural service needs in the
valley and desert regions, while in the mountain region residential uses of this
density will require urban service provision.
5.7
Minimum 5
gross acres/
unit
Designated in the outlying, less densely settled areas, often characterized
with physical constraints and not requiring connections to public water and
sewer infrastructure.
5.8
Minimum 20
gross acres/
unit
Designated in the outlying, less densely settled areas, often characterized by
physical constraints and not requiring connections to public water and sewer
infrastructure.
6.1
Regional
Commercial
Concentrated large-scale retail operations providing a broad range of goods
and services. Establishments in this category have a regional market area and
receive a large number of customers. Usually pertains to operations close to
residential and is generally 20 acres or greater in size. Uses shall include, but
are not limited to, the following: Regional shopping centers, and major central
business districts (CBDs), “big box” commercial centers, and outlet centers.
6.2
General
Commercial
Retail and service facilities of less intensity than regional centers providing
a broad range of goods and services which serve the day-to-day needs of
nearby residents. Uses shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
Neighborhood shopping centers, convenience markets, restaurants,
offices, wholesale business facilities, resort hotels and motels, hospitals,
schools (including trade schools), churches, and commercially related light
manufacturing or storage within fully enclosed facilities.
6.3
Highway
Commercial
Uses which provide services, amenities, and accommodations at key locations
along major roadways to visitors and through traffic. Uses shall include, but
are not limited to, the following: Hotels, motels, restaurants, garages, service
stations, recreational vehicle parks, fast-food restaurants, truck stops, and
truck washes.
7.1
Light Industrial
Unobtrusive industrial activities that can locate in close proximity to residential
and commercial uses with a minimum of environmental conflicts. These
industries are characterized as labor-intensive and nonpolluting and do not
produce fumes, odors, noise, or vibrations detrimental to nearby properties.
Uses shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Wholesale businesses,
storage buildings and yards, warehouses, manufacturing, and assembling.
7.2
Service
Industrial
Commercial or industrial activities which involve outdoor storage or use of
heavy equipment. Such uses produce significant air or noise pollution and
are visually obtrusive. Uses shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
Automobile and truck parking, storage and repair shops, freighting or trucking
yards, bottling plants, breweries, welding shops, cleaning plants, and other
manufacturing and processing activities.
COMMERCIAL
May 2010
INDUSTRIAL
2-14
Land Use
Classification
7.3
Heavy
Industrial
General Description
Large-scale industrial activities that are incompatible with other land
uses because of potential severe environmental impacts and/or high
employee densities. Uses shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
Manufacturing, assembling and processing activities, transportation
facilities, material and equipment storage, sawmills, foundries, refineries, and
petroleum product storage.
8.1
Intensive
Agriculture
Areas devoted to the production of irrigated crops or having a potential for
such use. Other agricultural uses, while not directly dependent on irrigation
for production, may also be consistent with the intensive agriculture
designation. Minimum parcel size is 40 acres gross. Uses shall include, but
are not limited to, the following: Irrigated cropland; orchards; vineyards; horse
ranches; raising of nursery stock ornamental flowers and Christmas trees; fish
farms’ bee keeping’ ranch and farm facilities and related uses; one singlefamily dwelling unit; cattle feed yards; dairies; dry land farming; livestock
grazing; water storage; ground water recharge acres; mineral; aggregate;
and petroleum exploration and extraction; hunting clubs; wildlife preserves;
farm labor housing; public utility uses; and agricultural industries pursuant to
provisions of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, and land within development
areas subject to significant physical constraints.
8.2
Resource
Reserve
Areas of mixed natural resource characteristics, such as rangeland, woodland,
and wildlife habitat which occur within an established County water district.
Minimum parcel size is 40 acres gross, except lands subject to a Williamson
Act Contract/Farmland Security Zone Contract, in which case the minimum
parcel size shall be 80 acres gross. Uses shall include, but are not limited to,
the following: Livestock grazing; dry land farming; ranching facilities; wildlife
and botanical 54 preserves; and timber harvesting; one single-family dwelling
unit; irrigated croplands; water storage or groundwater recharge areas;
mineral; aggregate; and petroleum exploration and extraction; recreational
activities, such as gun clubs and guest ranches; and land within development
areas subject to significant physical constraints.
8.3
Extensive
Agriculture
Agricultural uses involving large amounts of land with relatively low valueper-acre yields, such as livestock grazing, dry land farming, and woodlands.
Minimum parcel size is 40 acres gross, except lands subject to a Williamson
Act Contract/ Farmland Security Zone Contract, in which case the minimum
parcel size shall be 80 acres gross. Uses shall include, but are not limited
to, the following: Livestock grazing; dry land farming; ranching facilities;
wildlife and botanical preserves; and timber harvesting; one single-family
dwelling unit; irrigated croplands; water storage or groundwater recharge
areas; mineral; aggregate; and petroleum exploration and extraction; and
recreational activities, such as gun clubs and guest ranches; and land within
development areas subject to significant physical constraints.
8.4
Mineral and
Petroleum
Areas which contain producing or potentially productive petroleum fields,
natural gas, and geothermal resources, and mineral deposits of regional
and Statewide significance. Uses are limited to activities directly associated
with the resource extraction. Minimum parcel size is five acres gross. Uses
shall include, but are not limited to, the following: Mineral and petroleum
exploration and extraction, including aggregate extraction; extensive and
intensive agriculture; mineral and petroleum processing (excluding petroleum
refining); natural gas and geothermal resources; pipelines; power transmission
facilities; communication facilities; equipment storage yards; and borrow pits.
May 2010
RESOURCE
2-15
Land Use
Classification
8.5
Resource
Management
General Description
Primarily open space lands containing important resource values, such as
wildlife habitat, scenic values, or watershed recharge areas. These areas
may be characterized by physical constraints, or may constitute an important
watershed recharge area or wildlife habitat or may have value as a buffer
between resource areas and urban areas. Other lands with this resource
attribute are undeveloped, non-urban areas that do not warrant additional
planning within the foreseeable future because of current population (or
anticipated increase), marginal physical development, or no subdivision
activity. Minimum parcel size is 40 acres.
TABLE 2-6GTASP Land Use Designations and Acreages
Acreage in GTA
(approximate)
1
1.1
Percent of Total
GTA Acreage
Non-Jurisdictional
State or Federal Land
Non-Jurisdictional Subtotal
2
4,707
2.7%
4,707
2.7%
Map codes 2.1 – 2.11 overlay other map codes. See Table 2-3 for detailed breakdown.
3
Public Facilities
3.1
Public or Private Recreation Areas
3.2
3.3
3.4
Solid Waste Facilities
3.7
1.0%
Educational Facilities
694
0.4%
Other Facilities
614
0.4%
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer
Other Waste Facilities – Nonhazardous/
Nondisposal
Public Facilities Subtotal
5
45
0.0%
187
0.1%
13
0.0%
3,238
1.9%
285
0.2%
Residential
5.1
5.2
79
0.0%
5.3
409
0.2%
1,913
1.1%
5.4
5.45
5.5
Maximum 1 unit/net acre
5.5.1
5.6
5.6.1
Maximum 1 unit/net acre - Cluster Requirement
Minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit
Minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit - Cluster
Requirement
5.7
5.8
Residential Subtotal
May 2010
840
0.5%
6,015
3.5%
24
0.0%
12,350
7.1%
425
0.2%
4,215
2.4%
8,222
4.8%
34,779
20.1%
3.4.1
1,685
2-16
TABLE 2-6GTASP Land Use Designations and Acreages
Acreage in GTA
(approximate)
6
Percent of Total
GTA Acreage
Commercial
6.1
Regional Commercial
93
0.1%
6.2
General Commercial
275
0.2%
6.3
Highway Commercial
64
0.0%
433
0.3%
Commercial Subtotal
7
Industrial
7.1
Light Industrial
213
0.1%
7.2
Service Industrial
95
0.1%
7.3
Heavy Industrial
107
0.1%
415
0.3%
Industrial Subtotal
8
Resource
8.1
Intensive Agriculture (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
7,559
4.4%
8.2
Resource Reserve (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
44,302
25.6%
8.3
Extensive Agriculture (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
56,312
32.6%
8.4
Mineral and Petroleum (Min. 5 acre parcel size)
7,473
4.3%
8.5
Resource Management (Min. 20 acre parcel size)
13,526
7.8%
Resource Subtotal
TOTAL
129,172
74.8%
172,7441
100.0%
The total acreage of the proposed land use classifications is lower than the total acreage of the
existing land use classifications in Table 2-2 due to the presence of rights-of-way as a separate land
use in the Bear Valley Springs and Alpine Forest areas.
2
Implementation of the GTASP results in an increase in the amount of land allocated to the Resource
and Residential categories. The increases are a result of the elimination of the Special Treatment
Areas within the GTA, which previously covered over 34 percent of the region. Increases in acreages
for Public Facilities, Commercial, and Industrial land uses can also be attributed to the removal of the
Special Treatment Areas.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1
TABLE 2-7Existing County Physical Constraints Overlays Classifications and
Acreages in the GTA
Percent of Total
GTA Acreage
2.1
Seismic Hazard
4,378
2.5%
2.2
Landslide
2,833
1.6%
2.4
Steep Slope
93,523
53.2%
2.5
Flood Hazard
3,319
1.9%
2.6
Fire Hazard
2.7
Liquefaction Risk
Note: Individual parcels may have multiple overlay designations.
May 2010
174,765
99.5%
62,036
36.3%
2
Acreage in GTA
(approximate)
2-17
FIGURE 2-5
Land Use Plan
FIGURE 2-6
Detail Areas
FIGURE 2-7 Detail
Area 1 – Bear Valley Springs
FIGURE 2-8
Detail Area 2 – Alpine Forest
and Keene Rural Community
FIGURE 2-9
Detail Area 3 – Golden Hills and Old Towne
2.2ASSUMPTIONS AND ISSUES
The following land use assumptions and issues are identified:
2.2.1 General Land Use and Development
•
Environmental resources and hazards will continue to act as a constraint to land
use development within the GTA, and will also affect the ultimate development
capacity of the Plan.
•
Continuing growth will be predicated on the provision of adequate supporting
infrastructure, including roads, water, wastewater, schools, and other public
services. It is the purpose of this plan to ensure that continuing growth will not
be detrimental to existing development service levels.
•
For the purpose of determining development capacity within the GTA, an
overall growth assumption of 2.0% per year was utilized. The focus of the
growth assumption is on the residential development capacity of the GTA as it is
considered to be the majority of future development. Commercial and industrial
uses are necessary to create a balanced community with supporting services and
a job base.
•
The GTA contains two airports: the Tehachapi Municipal Airport and Mountain
Valley Airport. The Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
has established land use compatibility zones surrounding the two airports, which
are described and illustrated in that plan. The Tehachapi Municipal Airport,
located within the city of Tehachapi, is a municipally-owned public-use airport
with one 4,031-foot runway. Mountain Valley Airport is a privately-owned public
use airport with two 4,890-foot runways. Typical hours of airport operations are
between 7:00 a.m. and dusk. The Mountain Valley Airport is used primarily by
sailplanes and the aircraft used to tow them to their release location. The airport
is the base of operations for 90 aircraft. Additionally, the Skylark North Glider
School performs glider training on the site. This training is open to civilians, the
U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School (from Edwards Air Force Base), the National
Test Pilot School (from the Mojave Air & Space Port), the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, and others. There is also a snack shop and an RV park
with campground on the air field.
•
The GTA also contains military overflight areas that impact the region. These
areas are known as the R-2508 Complex, details of which are discussed in the Joint
Land Use Study. This study was prepared through a collaborative effort between
the military and various cities and counties coordinated by the Department of
Defense. It provides general boundaries of the military influence areas, and directs
local agencies to develop implementing regulations for development within these
areas. In summary, the R-2508 Complex includes three military installations: the
Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, and Fort Irwin
May 2010
Assumptions
2-23
National Training Center. The complex provides the largest single area of Special
Use Airspace (SUA) over land in the United States, covering a total of 20,000
square miles. The R-2508 Complex consists of restricted areas (R-2508, R-2502N,
R-2502E, R-2505, R-2506, R-2515, and R-2524), 10 Military Operations Areas
(MOAs), Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) areas, Controlled Firing
Areas (CFAs), and other special airspace such as the CORDS Road, the Precision
Impact Range Area, the Black Mountain Supersonic Corridor, the North
Hypersonic Corridor, the South Hypersonic Corridor, and the Airfield Approach
and Departure Corridors. Management of the R-2508 Complex is organized in
three groups: R-2508 Joint Policy and Planning Board (JPPB), R-2508 Complex
Control Board (CCB), and the R-2508 Central Coordinating Facility (CCF). Kern
County has adopted regulations to guide development within the R-2508 Complex
in Chapter 19.08.160 of the Zoning Ordinance. Development of structures over
500 feet in height within these air spaces, as depicted in Figure 2-10, Military
Review Requirements, may be subject to military review.
Issues
•
Although large lot development dispersed over a wide area with few linkages or
nearby services represents rural sprawl, this pattern has also created the rural
character of the study area when interspersed with agricultural uses and open
space. The compatibility of new development with this established character will
be important, as well as the impact of “strategic growth” techniques on existing
community character. Future development patterns and growth within the
GTASP will be influenced by both the inherent negative aspects of rural sprawl
and the positive aspects of rural character.
•
The ability to fund and maintain expanded infrastructure systems is also a
concern within the GTA. The GTASP addresses the need to accommodate new
development while ensuring that adequate infrastructure is provided to support
new residents and commercial activity.
•
The GTA contains two airports and portions of the R-2508 Complex; therefore,
proposed development should incorporate design standards that are consistent
with the Kern County ALUCP and military review requirements.
2.2.2 Residential Development
•
The population of GTA has grown just over three percent per year from 1990
to 2000, and slightly over two percent per year from 2000 to 2007. There is no
expectation of any dramatic increase in population in the coming decades.
Therefore, the projected average annual growth rate of 2.0 percent would result
in approximately 13,534 housing units in 2035, an increase of approximately
4,780 housing units over the life of the plan. Table 2-8, Summary of Existing
Development, 2030 Planning Horizon Growth Alternatives, and General Plan
Capacity with Constraints, summarizes the projected dwelling unit growth within
the GTA in comparison with the capacity permitted by existing general plan
May 2010
Assumptions
2-24
FIGURE 2-10 Military Review Requirements
designations. Growth projections for the City of Tehachapi are also important
to GTA capacity analysis as primary service needs are interconnected between
both the unincorporated and incorporated areas. The City’s General Plan Update
Moderate Growth scenario adds 4,500 new dwelling units by 2030, for a 2030
projected total of 7,500 units within the City limits.
TABLE 2-8Summary of Existing Development, 2030 Planning Horizon Growth
Alternatives, and General Plan Capacity with Constraints
2008 Existing Units
2030 DUs Projection
@ 2% Annual Growth
Existing General Plan
Capacity Alternative
(DUs)
General Plan DU
Capacity Incorporating
Known Physical
Constraints
8,754
13,534
44,300
32,750
1
Note: Total DUs includes existing and new dwelling units.
County GIS, 2008.
2
Physical Constraints map codes (2.1 - 2.11) have not been mapped for portions of the GTA. Inclusion
of additional Constraint areas will further reduce the General Plan capacity DUs.
1
Issues
•
The existing communities of the GTA have unique identities that are important
to the residents of those communities and to the overall character of the region.
If new development is not logically planned to maintain separations between
communities, development pressures in undeveloped areas could impact the
unique identities of each community.
•
The pattern of existing land use development within the GTA is characterized
by distinct residential communities with large-lots that are widely dispersed, a
pattern that is representative of rural sprawl. Existing development is primarily
residential, requiring longer travel distances to commercial services. Continuing
development in this pattern is not consistent with the sustainable development
objectives of this plan, and more sustainable compact or clustered development
will be needed in the future. Continuing rural sprawl may also exacerbate the loss
of agriculture.
2.2.3 Commercial & Industrial Development
•
There is currently limited commercial development in the GTA due to the small
population base and rural density. With the exception of the City of Tehachapi
and several outlying communities (e.g., Golden Hills, Stallion Springs, Bear Valley
Springs), the population of the GTA is largely decentralized. The GTA will need
a balanced land use mix to ensure that future development is environmentally
sustainable.
•
As additional wind and solar development occurs in the mountain and desert
areas surrounding the GTA plan area; additional industrial development and
infrastructure will occur within the project boundaries to facilitate these uses.
May 2010
Assumptions
2-26
Issues
•
Adequate land areas must be provided for future growth and development of
commercial uses. These commercial services must be located so as to best serve
the needs of existing and new residential development, as well as existing and
future populations.
•
Of primary concern to industrial development is a location relative to resources,
labor supplies, transportation, and energy sources. Conflicts can occur when
industrial development takes place in areas that are then precluded from resource
production or which causes problems of incomparability with adjacent land uses.
2.2.4 Resource Management
Assumptions
•
Preservation of open space will continue to be important objectives in maintaining
the rural character of the study area.
•
Open space shall be preserved when possible and proposed land use changes shall
not be considered viable until such time as adequate infrastructure improvements,
such as water, sewer and road services, are in place, or are incorporated as part of
the proposed project.
•
Conflicts over the use of agriculture land frequently occur. As is the case for other
urbanizing regions, the loss of valuable agricultural lands to urban development
is a prime concern.
•
Environmental resource and hazard constraints will limit the land use holding
capacity of the study area, and must be carefully considered in new development
planning. Water availability, in particular, will continue to be a significant factor
in projecting a development capacity for the GTA within the planning horizon.
Water availability is also a key factor in agriculture viability within the GTA.
•
There is a community interest in the preservation of agricultural land uses within
the GTA. Future growth and development will likely continue to create pressure
to convert agricultural lands to urban uses. Agricultural lands are predominately
located on the flatter portions of the GTA, which are easier to develop with
urban uses. This poses a difficult question as to where continuing growth
within the GTA should occur, which will require careful balancing of competing
agricultural, scenic, and natural/open space uses with development and growth
pressures. Clustering and densification of existing development areas may assist
in addressing this issue. Therefore, sufficient guidance and protections will be
needed to preserve and conserve valuable resources while allowing development
to occur in appropriate areas. There are significant opportunities for renewable
energy development in the GTA, particularly in the areas of solar and wind energy
development. Further development of these resources is limited by a number of
factors:
May 2010
Issues
2-27
a) Potential aesthetic impacts.
b) Potential biological impacts (e.g., wind turbine impacts on bird
populations).
c) Potential land use impacts (e.g., agricultural conversion to industrial use).
d) Lack of adequate power transmission capacity, particularly for wind
energy production.
e) Competition with neighboring areas for renewable energy facilities.
2.3Land Use Goals, Policies, and
implementation measures
Based on the project area setting, the planning issues and assumptions listed above
and the result of the public outreach community meetings, the following land use
goals and policies have been identified for the GTA. These have guided preparation
of the land use plan, and provide direction for project level land use decisions and the
land use implementation program. The goals, policies, and implementation measures
of the Kern County General Plan are also hereby incorporated by reference. When
discrepancies exist between the General Plan and the GTASP, the more restrictive
requirement shall apply. The Kern County Planning Director shall determine which
policy is more restrictive should conflicts arise.
2.3.1General Land Use and Development
GOAL LU.1Ensure that the GTA can accommodate projected future growth
and development while maintaining a safe and healthful
environment and prosperous economy by guiding development
away from hazardous areas, and assuring the provision of
adequate public services and infrastructure.
GOAL LU.2Promote land use development that results in sustainable land
use patterns and conservation of GTA resources.
May 2010
Goals
2-28
GOAL LU.3Discourage scattered urban development that is not supported
by adequate infrastructure and promote development that is
consistent with the existing landscape and character of the GTA.
GOAL LU.4Promote development that is compatible with surrounding
existing land uses, including commercial, industrial and
agricultural/open space uses.
Policies
Policy LU.1
The County shall discourage sprawling patterns of development
that do not recognize the distinct existing communities within
the GTA and the County shall encourage varied approaches to
residential development that will foster a variety of housing
types and densities while preserving the character of individual
communities.
Policy LU.3
Proposed development shall demonstrate that an adequate
water supply is available.
Policy LU.4
Development projects shall be consistent with the adopted
Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and R-2508
Complex.
Policy LU.5Encourage well-planned land use patterns for new uses by
reviewing new development proposals on the ability of
infrastructure, landforms, physical constraints, and emergency
response capabilities to support the proposed development.
Policy LU.6
May 2010
Implement strategic growth and sustainability principles
in new development to achieve more efficient provision of
public services, facilities, infrastructure and utilities, including
requirements for the use of the Cluster Combining District of
the Zoning Ordinance. The County shall promote clustering as
Policy LU.2Require that all new residential development on property
measuring 2.5 acres or less, new commercial, and new industrial
development be served by adequate sewer systems via the
annexation into the City of Tehachapi or an existing Community
Services District (CSD). In the event that the development
cannot be annexed into a CSD, the project proposal shall
include a package sewer treatment plant or a request for a sewer
exception from Kern County Engineering and Survey Services.
2-29
a means of achieving efficient and sustainable construction and
providing larger areas of usable common open space.
Policy LU.7
“Dark Sky” principles of lighting control shall be encouraged
in all new development.
Policy LU.8
Discretionary development of wireless communication facilities
shall be consistent with the Federal Telecommunication Act
and Chapter 19.91 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance.
Policy LU.9
The County shall not support new development on properties
with physical and/or environmental constraints unless
appropriate studies establish that development will not be
hazardous to life and property, and potential impacts may
be mitigated or overriding circumstances exist that preclude
mitigation of all impacts.
Policy LU.10Encourage new development to infill existing development areas
such as bypassed parcels and provide for an orderly outward
expansion of new urban development so that it maintains
continuity of existing development, allows for the incremental
expansion of infrastructure and public service, minimizes
impacts on natural environmental resources, provides a highquality environment for residents and businesses.
Implementation Measures
a. In the event that a project cannot be annexed into a CSD,
the applicant shall apply for a Sewer Exception to the Kern
County Department of Engineering and Survey Services for
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Sewer Exception
request shall be accompanied by a soils engineering study
prepared within the last year which indicates that alternative
septic systems, either individual or community design, are
equal to or better than a community collection, treatment,
and disposal system. This report must be approved by the
Kern County Environmental Health Services Department.
May 2010
Implementation 1 All specific plan amendment requests and all other development
proposals for new industrial uses, new commercial uses, and
any new residential subdivision or single lot measuring 2.5
acres or less, shall be annexed into the City of Tehachapi or
a Community Services District (CSD) and shall be connected
to and served by a community sewage collection and disposal
system, subject to the following provisions:
2-30
b. All development subject to this section and that does not
obtain approval of a Sewer Exception shall be required to
annex to an existing CSD or the City of Tehachapi. Policies
LU.2, 5, 6
Implementation 2 All discretionary development proposals shall be accompanied
by documentation which demonstrates that all necessary
infrastructure, water supply, and adequate public services are
available at the time of development. Discretionary projects
shall present this information during the discretionary permit
application process. Policies LU.3, 5, 6
Implementation 3 All development proposals shall be reviewed for compatibility
with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and
R-2508 Complex. Appropriate limitations and conditions shall
be incorporated to address compatibility with the Tehachapi
Municipal Airport and Mountain Valley Airport. Policy LU.4
Implementation 4 When processing any request for a residential zone change
or residential tract map, the County shall require innovative
development through the use of strategic growth principles and
various County implementation tools such as the CL (Cluster),
SP (Special Planning), and OS (Open Space) Combining zone
districts; density bonuses; construction of transit facilities;
etc. For example, Cluster Plans approved in conjunction with
the Cluster (CL) Combining District will permit flexible design
and siting standards (such as setbacks, yards, and building
relationships). Policies LU.1, 5, 6
Implementation 6 All new development proposals that are located along
established or natural drainage courses shall preserve those
drainage areas through the dedication of open-space corridors
that are a minimum of 50-feet wide (25-feet from centerline) or
a distance as approved by the Engineering and Survey Services
Department. Policy LU.5, 6
Implementation 7 All discretionary proposals shall be subject to Dark Skies
development principles. Policy LU.7
May 2010
Implementation 5 All land divisions will be reviewed to ensure consistency with the
minimum lot size provisions established by this plan. Policy LU.5,
6, 9
2-31
Implementation 8 Discretionary development of wireless communication facilities
shall be in accordance with Chapter 19.91 of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Federal Telecommunication Act. Policy LU.8
Implementation 9 All specific plan amendment requests and all discretionary
development proposals shall be required to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and may
be required to provide additional technical information to
demonstrate compliance with CEQA, including, but not limited
to:
a. Agricultural Conversion Study, if the project site is subject
to a Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contract or
is designated by the County’s General Plan, zoned, or used
for agricultural purposes.
b. Traffic Report/Study, unless waived by Kern County Roads
Department.
c. Septic System Feasibility Study, unless waived by the Kern
County Environmental Health Department.
d. Biological Study.
e. Water Supply Assessment.
f. Archaeological Study.
g. Geotechnical Study.
h. Air Quality Study, unless waived by the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District.
Implementation 10 The County Planning Department will seek review and
comment from the County Engineering and Survey Services
Department on the implementation of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System for all discretionary projects.
Policies LU.5, 9
May 2010
i. Other studies as deemed necessary by the Planning
Department.
Policies LU.5, 6, 9
2-32
2.3.2Residential Development
Goals
GOAL LU.5Guide the development of new residential uses within the GTA so
as to ensure that the supply of land designated for residential use
will meet anticipated demand.
GOAL LU.6Discourage scattered residential development that is not
supported by adequate infrastructure or that significantly
degrades the natural environment.
GOAL LU.7Retain the character and identity of the existing communities
within the GTA by maintaining community boundaries.
GOAL LU.8Promote mixed-densities within developments to increase
average density.
Policies
Policy LU.12
Promote denser growth patterns and protection of natural
resources that retain the rural character of the community.
Policy LU.13
Facilitate the provision of reliable and cost-effective utility
services to residents.
Policy LU.14
Support new development only when the necessary public
services, infrastructure, and utilities can be provided without
additional costs to established service users.
Policy LU.15Respect the development patterns of existing communities
by incorporating separations between the communities in the
GTA.
Policy LU.16Encourage clustering of housing as a means of protecting
natural resources and avoiding physical constraints.
Policy LU.17
May 2010
Permit limited neighborhood-type commercial uses in all
residential map code designations provided that the specific
Policy LU.11Reduce rural sprawl by requiring new development proposals to
demonstrate that sewer, water and public services are available
or will be provided to support any proposed development.
2-33
commercial use being proposed is determined to be of a
neighborhood nature and appropriate/compatible with
surrounding uses.
Policy LU.18
The GTASP shall establish a development cap of 4,780
additional residential units within the unincorporated area of
the GTA through the year 2030. No additional building permits
for residential units shall be permitted beyond that maximum
capacity until the County can update the Specific Plan.
Implementation 11 All residential development proposals shall be reviewed by
the County to determine the costs of any County facility/
infrastructure improvements which are necessitated by the
proposed development. Required improvements shall be
implemented or mitigated by the project proponent. Policy
LU.13
Implementation 12 The County shall encourage development that provides costeffective delivery of infrastructure/utility services and limits
rural sprawl by developing within or adjacent to areas with
adequate infrastructure and utility capacity. Policies LU.11, 12,
13, 14, 17
Implementation 13 Certain residential development projects may be awarded
density bonuses as specified by Chapter 19.92 of the Kern
County Zoning Ordinance in return for special project design,
infrastructure improvements, extra amenities, usable open
space, or other developer efforts. Policy LU.16
Implementation 15 All development proposals for cluster-style residential contain
a minimum of 35 percent (or any higher amount as required by
the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan) of the net area of
parcels proposed for cluster development shall remain as open
space. Private yards and public and private streets shall not be
considered as open space land. Policies LU.16
Implementation 16 The County shall obtain annual reports of the number of
residential building permits issued within the unincorporated
May 2010
Implementation 14 All zone change requests which would create multi-family
residential zoning districts (R-2 and R-3) shall include the PD
(Precise Development Plan) Combining District. Policies LU.16
2-34
Greater Tehachapi Area. The County shall establish a system
to track the number of residential building permits received.
Once the development growth cap of 4,780 units has been
achieved, no additional residential building permits shall be
issued until the County prepares an update of this Specific Plan
which demonstrates that adequate infrastructure and natural
resources are available for additional development. Policy LU.18
2.3.3
Commercial and Industrial Development
Goals
GOAL LU.9Ensure that an adequate and geographically balanced supply of
land designated for a range of commercial and industrial uses.
GOAL LU.10Pursue a strong economy through logical placement and
distribution of commercial and industrial development within
the GTA.
GOAL LU.11Provide highway commercial along interstates and highways to
provide services for the traveling public without being a detriment
to existing rural communities.
GOAL LU.12Ensure that adequate infrastructure and public services are
available for all proposed commercial and industrial projects.
Policy LU.19
The County will promote a pattern of commercial and industrial
development that contributes to the economic and physical
development of existing communities throughout the GTA.
Policy LU.20
Support new development only when the necessary public
services, infrastructure, and utilities can be provided without
additional costs to established service users.
Policy LU.21
The County shall encourage future commercial uses within
close proximity of existing or planned residential development.
The County shall not support requests for new commercial
designations that are made far in advance of actual current
demand.
May 2010
Policies
2-35
Policy LU.22Encourage new commercial buildings that are oriented towards
public streets and sited at consistent frontage lines with parking
areas located at the rear of buildings in order to give better
definition to the public realm, prevent the development of
“strip centers,” and establish a safer and more active on-street
pedestrian zone.
Policy LU.23
The County shall protect existing industrial designations from
incompatible land use intrusion and those land areas best
suited for industrial activity by virtue of their location and
other criteria shall be protected from residential and other
incompatible development.
Policy LU.24Require that new industrial uses provide design features such
as screen walls, landscaping, increased height and/or setbacks,
and lighting restrictions between the boundaries of adjacent
residential land use designations so as to reduce impacts on
residences due to light, noise, sound, and vibration.
Policy LU.25
Light Industrial (Map Code 7.1) may be considered near a
residential neighborhood and other sensitive uses provided
there is an adequate means of establishing compatibility
and requests for new Map Code 7.2 (Service Industrial) and
7.3 (Heavy Industrial) designations shall be discouraged on
sites contiguous to or located within 1/4 mile of residentially
designated property.
Policy LU.26 The County shall research the creation and implementation of
architectural and aesthetic development guidelines for all new
commercial and industrial development throughout the GTA.
Implementation 18 The County shall support infill development by encouraging
the reuse and occupancy of existing commercial and industrial
buildings that have adequate infrastructure and public
services before supporting the construction of new buildings
in undeveloped areas outside of existing communities. Policies
LU.20, 21
May 2010
Implementation 17 The County shall encourage the development of future
commercial uses near existing or planned residential
development. Policies LU.19, 21
2-36
Implementation 19 All development proposals for commercial uses shall be
reviewed to ensure that the scale of the proposed development is
consistent with the rural character of the area and that proper
screening is included in the project design to minimize impacts
on nearby residential and/or sensitive land uses. Policies LU.19,
22
Implementation 20 All zone change requests which would create new commercial
(CH, C-1, C-2) or industrial (M-1, M-2, M-3) zoning shall be
reviewed to ensure that the depth of new commercially or
industrially zoned area is at least half the length of the street
frontage. Exceptions may be made where existing development
or physical constraints dictate a different, more logical shape.
Policies LU.22
Implementation 21 All zone change requests which would create new commercial
or industrial zoning districts shall include the PD (Precise
Development Plan) Combining District. Policies LU.19, 20, 21
Implementation 22 Any newly proposed commercial and industrial development
that is adjacent to a residentially zoned and/or developed parcel
shall demonstrate compatibility with adjacent residential
development through the following:
a. Evaluation and mitigation of potential noise impacts.
b. Reduction and/or minimization of light spill-over onto
adjacent properties.
c. Buffering of residential development from proposed
commercial/industrial development through use of walls,
landscaping, screening, etc.
d. Placement loading/unloading areas as far as practicable
from residences.
Implementation 23 All applications for a Specific Plan Amendment to a commercial
or industrial designation shall include sufficient data to allow
the County to review the request using the following criteria
and guidelines:
a. Location suitability with respect to market demand area.
b. Provision of adequate access, ingress and egress facilities
and services, and the mitigation of traffic impacts.
May 2010
e. Or by other means as determined by the Planning
Director.
Policies LU.19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26
2-37
c. Provision of adequate water, sewer, and other public
services to be used.
d. Provision of adequate on-site, nonpublic water supply and
sewage disposal if no public systems are available or used.
e. Compatibility with adjacent uses (scale, noise, emissions, or
other nuisances, etc.) and methods for buffering.
f. Design, layout, and visual appearance coordinated with
existing adjacent commercial and industrial uses.
g. Overall consistency with the General Plan.
Policies LU.19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26
Implementation 24 The County shall prepare architectural and aesthetic
development guidelines, to be incorporated into the PD
Combining Zone District requirements, for all new commercial
and industrial development throughout the GTA. Policy LU.26
2.3.4Resource Management
Goals
GOAL LU.13Preserve the rural and agricultural character of the GTA.
GOAL LU.14Support new development to meet the existing and future needs
of the GTA without impairing the economic strength derived
from the existing agriculture, rangeland, green energy and
mineral resources located throughout the GTA.
GOAL LU.15Protect areas of important mineral, petroleum, and
agricultural resource potential for future use while ensuring
that the development of resource areas has a minimal effect on
neighboring resource lands and sensitive uses.
GOAL LU.17
Conserve prime agriculture lands, as defined by the CEQA Public
Resource Code Section §21060.1, from premature conversion.
GOAL LU.18
Maintain and protect existing agricultural areas not adjacent
to existing development while facilitating continued growth
throughout the GTA.
May 2010
GOAL LU.16Encourage safe and orderly solar and wind energy development
within the GTA, including research and demonstration projects.
2-38
Policies
Policy LU.27
Preserve existing agricultural areas, including charted
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, and Farmland of Local Importance which
can support a variety of agricultural uses based on soil
characteristics, topography, and location from premature
conversion.
Policy LU.28
Support sustainable agricultural and agritourism practices
where feasible and compatible with surrounding land uses.
Policy LU.29Encourage qualifying agricultural lands to participate in the
Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone programs.
Policy LU.30
Areas designated for agricultural use [Map Code 8.1 (Intensive
Agriculture), Map Code 8.2 (Resource Reserve), Map Code 8.3
(Extensive Agriculture), Map Code 8.5 (Resource Management)]
should be of an economically viable size in order to participate
in the State Williamson Act Program/Farmland Security Zone
Contract.
Policy LU.31
The County should encourage the merger of largely undeveloped
antiquated subdivisions which are designated Map Code 8.1
(Intensive Agriculture), Map Code 8.2 (Resource Reserve), Map
Code 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture), or Map Code 8.5 (Resource
Management) into larger holdings to achieve density consistency
with the underlying land use designation.
Policy LU.33
Discourage subdivision of agriculturally designated land if the
subdivision would divide land into areas that are too small to
support viable agricultural operations or which contributes to
the transition of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.
Policy LU.34
Agriculture and other resource uses will be considered a
consistent use in areas designated for Mineral and Petroleum
Resource uses on the General Plan.
May 2010
Policy LU.32Require recreational or open space buffers between existing
resource uses and proposed residential or other sensitive land
uses.
2-39
Policy LU.35
Lands classified as MRZ-2, as designated by the State of
California, should be protected from encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
Policy LU.36
Areas along rivers and streams will be conserved where feasible
to enhance drainage, flood control, recreational, and other
beneficial uses while acknowledging existing land use patterns.
Policy LU.37
All new land division actions of agriculturally designated land
(8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5) shall have a minimum lot size of forty
(40) acres, unless an 80-acre minimum is required for an existing
Williamson Act Contract. Each parcel shall be permitted to
contain single-family residences as permitted by the A zone
district.
Policy LU.38
Where agriculturally designated land (8.1, 8.2, and 8.3) does
not have access to water rights, it shall not be considered as
priority agricultural land.
Policy LU.39
When evaluating Specific Plan Amendment proposals to
change agriculturally designated lands to accommodate nonagricultural uses (e.g., residential, commercial, or industrial
development), the County shall consider the following factors:
a. Approval of the proposal will not unreasonably interfere
with agricultural operations on surrounding lands.
b. Public services (schools, fire, sheriff, etc.) and infrastructure
(roads, water, sewer, etc.) that are necessary for the proposal
are available and have the capacity to adequately serve the
project.
There is a demonstrated need and lack of other feasible
locations for the proposed project at the proposed location
based upon population projections, market studies, or other
indicators.
d. The proposal incorporates innovative green and sustainable
measures and/or an accompanying preservation of other
agricultural lands.
e.
The site is contiguous to properties that are developed or
characterized by non-agricultural land uses.
f. The property is unsuitable for long-term agricultural use
due to soil conditions other similar limiting factors.
May 2010
c.
2-40
g. Clear and demonstrable reasons exist for approving the
proposal over needs to retain the land for long-term
agricultural use.
h. Where adjacent or within proximity (1/2 mile) to existing
urban areas, the County shall discourage agricultural
conversion that is discontinuous with urban development.
Policy LU.40Encourage the continued development of existing and
future agritourism industries such as wineries and farmers
markets throughout the GTA, when such development can
be appropriately mitigated to ensure minimal environmental
impacts.
Implementation 25 Protect resource land uses, such as agricultural crops, oilfields,
mineral extraction areas, etc., through the use of appropriate
implementing zone districts: A (Exclusive Agriculture), DI
(Drilling Island), NR (Natural Resource), or PE (Petroleum
Extraction). Policies LU.27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35
Implementation 26 The County shall continue to monitor new legislation as it
relates to energy production and periodically review the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance for any required updates. Policies
LU.34
Implementation 27 Areas designated as Map Codes 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 shall have
a minimum lot size of 40 acres for land division purposes.
Implementation 28 All discretionary development proposals located within 1,000 feet
of agriculturally-designated land or agricultural operations shall
include adequate buffers to reduce sound transmission and dust/
spray transfer. Policies LU.28, 39
Implementation 29 All Cluster Plans, Precise Development Plans, Conditional
Use Permits and Subdivision Maps located on property within
May 2010
However, when a property is under Williamson Act Contract
and is designated as 8.2, 8.3, or 8.5, the minimum parcel size
shall be 80 acres, until such time as a contract expires or is
cancelled. Once a contract expires or is cancelled, the minimum
parcel size shall revert to 40 acres for all future land division
purposes. Policies LU.27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37
2-41
1,000 feet of agriculturally-designated land or agricultural
operations shall include a notation which notifies potential
property owners and/or applicants within the project area of
the potential for agricultural operations and conditions in the
area. Policies LU.27, 28
Implementation 30 Agriculturally designated lands shall be conserved through the
use of agricultural zoning with minimum parcel size provisions
as established by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and the
policies of this Specific Plan. Policies LU.27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37
Implementation 31 All Specific Plan Amendments proposing to convert Prime
Farmland, as defined by CEQA Public Resources Code §21060.1,
to a non-agricultural designation and any discretionary proposal
for development which would place non-agricultural uses on
property that has been planted within the last five years shall be
accompanied by a Farmland Conversion Study (prepared using
County Guidelines for Agricultural Soils/Farmland Conversion
Studies) as part of a development application. Mitigation for
the loss of agricultural land shall be at a ratio of 1:1 for net
acreage before conversion, shall include properties located
within the GTA, and may include one or more of the following
to satisfy this requirement:
a. Funding and purchase of agricultural conservation
easements (to be managed and maintained by an appropriate
entity);
b. Purchase of credits from an established agricultural
farmland mitigation bank;
d. Participation in any agricultural land mitigation program
adopted by Kern County that provides equal or more
effective mitigation than the measures listed above. Policies LU.27, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40
May 2010
c. Contribution of agricultural land or equivalent funding
to an organization that provides for the preservation of
farmland in California;
2-42
Chapter 3
conservation &
Open space
3.1Purpose, Scope, and Contents
The Open Space and Conservation Element addresses open space and the conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources. Open space serves many purposes,
including the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources,
the provision of outdoor recreational opportunities, and the protection of public health
and safety. Conservation includes the preservation, protection, development, and
utilization of all natural resources including water, habitats, forests, soils, rivers and
other waters, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.
This Element contains a discussion of existing open space and conservation land use
conditions and identifies open space and conservation issues within the Plan area. The
identified issues provide direction for developing goals and policies to guide open space
and conservation decisions in the subsequent implementation of the Plan.
Water Resources
The Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) manages the two primary
sources of water for the GTA: groundwater in three separate groundwater basins and
the State Water Project (SWP) contract allocation. The three groundwater basins are
the Tehachapi Valley basin, the Brite Valley basin, and the Cummings Valley basin,
all of which are adjudicated. An adjudicated groundwater basin means a court has
determined the safe yield of the basin, and a judgment is in effect limiting how much
water may be drawn from that basin. The safe yield is the maximum quantity of water
than can be annually withdrawn from a groundwater basin without adverse effects.
Existing development in the GTA is primarily dependent upon the groundwater from
the basin in which it is located. In general, groundwater may not be exported outside
the basin it is in. Currently, with the oversight of TCCWD and coordination between
the various water purveyors in the area, water demand does not exceed the safe yield
of each basin.
The groundwater availability of the three groundwater basins is shown on Table 3-1,
Groundwater Basin Water Availability. This table represents a snap shot in time and
should not be used as a determining factor as to the amount of groundwater available
to facilitate future development proposals.
May 2010
CHAPTER 3 Conservation & Open Space Element
3.2.1
3-2
TABLE 3-1Groundwater Basin Water Availability
Groundwater
Basin
Allowed
Safe
Pumping
Yield/
(acre(acre-feet)
feet)
2008 Current
Production
(acre-feet)
2008
Dwelling
Units Served
% of
Safe
Yield
2008
Unexercised
Groundwater
(AF)
Brite Basin
500
500
328
411
66%
172
Cummings
Basin
4,090
4,090
3,958
4,066
97%
132
Tehachapi
Basin (incl.
City of
Tehachapi)
5,500
5,524
5,127
4,277
93%
397
Subtotals
10,090
10,114
9,413
8,754
701
Water facility infrastructure and delivery is provided by six permitted water and/or
water/wastewater utilities in the GTA. These include Bear Valley Springs CSD, Golden
Hills CSD, Stallion Springs CSD, Alpine Forest Park Mutual Water Company, Grand
Oaks Water Company (California Water Service Corporation), West Tehachapi Mutual
Water Company, and the City of Tehachapi. Figure 3-1, CSD and Water Company Service
Areas, shows the location of water providers in the GTA. Groundwater quality in the
GTA is generally high. All of the water districts regularly monitor the water quality
in their wells and are required to meet federal and state standards for drinking water.
May 2010
As shown on Table 3-1, each basin is currently serving its existing dwelling units and
other water users without exceeding the safe yields of each basin. In addition, the
Tehachapi Valley Basin is providing water to the City of Tehachapi. Based on 2008
groundwater current water use conditions, 701 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater is available
to serve additional development within the GTA, without any supplemental water
supply from the State Water Project (SWP) or other sources. However, this available
water is shared with the City of Tehachapi, meaning that the 701 AF of unexercised
groundwater must serve a combination of growth within the GTA and the city unless
other means of providing water service are identified. The TCCWD has a contract for
19,300 acre-feet per year (AFY) of imported water from the SWP; however, TCCWD
is not guaranteed 100 percent of its allocation each year as SWP delivery percentages
vary with weather conditions and other water-related environmental and regulatory
constraints in California. Additionally, the TCCWD only has the infrastructure in
place to pump a maximum of 15,000 AF into the Greater Tehachapi Area annually.
In general, depending on the annual allocation of SWP water made available from the
Kern County Water Agency and the State Department of Water Resources (DWR),
TCCWD pumps between 3,000 and 8,000 AF annually.
3-3
FIGURE 3-1
CSD and Water Company Service Areas
Urban Water Management Plan
In 2009, the TCCWD, along with the Bear Valley CSD, Golden Hills CSD, Stallion
Springs CSD and the City of Tehachapi, began preparation of a Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (RUWMP). Preparation of the Plan is necessary because as water
resources become more and more scarce throughout the GTA, state and local agencies
must engage in a water supply demand and reliability assessment to ensure reliable
supplies for current and future users.
Urban water suppliers may satisfy the requirement to prepare and update UWMPs
by participating in an area wide, regional, watershed, or basin-wide urban water
management planning effort where those plans will contribute to the achievement
of conservation and efficient water use for the region as a whole. Recent legislation
requires water conservation measures to be incorporated into the 2010 UWMPs. This
Specific Plan also incorporates water conservation measures that would be applicable
to new development in the GTA.
Issues
•
The long-term availability of adequate water supplies will be a major determinant
of future growth within the GTA, as well as the ability to maintain viable
agricultural uses. Although current groundwater resources and management
practices are sufficient to serve existing land uses, anticipated growth within the
GTA will likely require a reliable supply of supplemental water to accommodate
the build-out of a majority of the existing parcels pursuant to the General Plan.
•
Projected growth within the planning horizon of the GTA will likely require
some level of additional water to supplement available groundwater resources;
including, but not limited to: increased SWP water deliveries, groundwater
May 2010
The DWR requires every urban water supplier greater than 3,000 service connections
to prepare and adopt an UWMP. A UWMP describes and evaluates sources of supply,
reasonable and practical efficient uses, and reclamation and demand management
activities. UWMPs serve as a foundational planning document and can be used as a
source of information for updating General Plans. The components of the plan may
vary according to an individual community or area’s characteristics and its capabilities
to efficiently use and conserve water. “Urban water supplier” means a supplier, either
publicly- or privately-owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly
or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 AF of water
annually. UWMPs are required to be updated every 5 years. The next cycle of UWMPs
for 2010 are due July 1, 2011 because DWR extended the deadline for the 2010 UWMP.
It is anticipated that the TCCWD UWMP will be approved in late 2010; however, it is
noted that not the entire GTA is covered by the current UWMP boundaries. Therefore,
additional evaluation of water supplies may be necessary for future development
projects or uses with new water demands in those areas not addressed in the UWMP.
3-5
banking, release of water resources currently allocated to agricultural use, and
increased use of recycled water.
•
Additional infrastructure improvements are necessary to allow additional
pumping of water into the plan area.
•
Multiple groundwater basins and various water purveyors/service providers
responsible for providing domestic water services to residents within the GTA
results in the competition for limited groundwater resources and can make
coordination of those resources difficult.
3.2.2Scenic and Natural Resources
The GTA is a distinctive region with topographical and natural diversity resulting in
numerous and varied scenic and natural resources. These scenic and natural resources
include vistas of mountains, valleys, lakes, agriculture, ranching, historical buildings,
and oak tree woodlands. The Tehachapi Mountains and Southern Sierra Nevada
surround four main valleys, the Tehachapi, Cummings, Bear and Brite Valleys.
Notable peaks in the Tehachapi Mountains include Tehachapi, Double Mountain, Bear
Mountain, Cummings Mountain, Black Mountain, and Sweet Ridge. Scenic resources,
including various types of chaparral, woodland, and forest communities; recreational
areas; and major mountains, are depicted on Figure 3-2, Scenic Resources and Recreation
Map.
Issues
In order to accommodate projected growth, preserve scenic/natural resources and
agricultural lands, and avoid environmental hazards, much of the new development will
require the use of strategic growth techniques of clustered, compact development with
higher densities in order to preserve open space, agricultural, and natural resources.
This type of development will need to be sensitively designed to maintain the rural
character of the study area.
3.2.3Biological Resources
The GTA is situated within the Tehachapi Mountain Range. This mountain range
lies in a biogeographically unique position between the Sierra Madre, Castaic, and
Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges. This GTA forms a linkage between the foothills and
grasslands of the San Joaquin Valley to the west, the high-elevation hardwood and
May 2010
The current dominant development pattern within the GTA consists of larger residential
lots whose layout is characteristic of rural sprawl. Continued development following
this existing pattern may adversely impact the GTA’s numerous scenic and natural
resources and may also contribute to the loss of agricultural lands.
3-6
May 2010
3-7
FIGURE 3-2
Scenic Resources and
Recreation Map
coniferous forests within the Tehachapi Range
Habitats within the
itself, and the foothill transition into the Tehachapi Mountains are
Mojave Desert along the eastern base of the relatively intact, providing
southern Tehachapi Mountains. This setting a protected and contiguous
has allowed for a unique suite of containing
corridor for successful
diverse flora and fauna. The setting also
migrations.
facilitates movement of a variety of species to
and from various habitats within the Tehachapi Mountains and adjacent mountains
and valleys. Habitats within the Tehachapi Mountains are relatively intact, providing
a protected and contiguous corridor for successful migrations.
As shown in Figure 3-3, Sensitive Species Areas, and Figure 3-4, Oak Woodland/Forest
Areas, there are several sensitive biological resources within the GTA, and critical
habitat for the California condor is located in the southwestern corner of the GTA.
It is likely that other areas with biological resources are also present in the area, but
remain unidentified due to the lack of prior biological analysis. Biological studies may
be required to ascertain the extent of these resources in areas where future projects are
proposed. As shown in Figure 3-4, other biological resource issues that are of potential
concern include the preservation of oak woodlands and mature oak trees per the KCGP’s
Oak Tree Conservation policies.
Issues
The GTA contains a variety of sensitive biological resources that need to be
addressed and conserved where feasible as development continues throughout the
GTA.
•
The GTA contains a variety of Oak Woodlands that need to be acknowledged and
conserved where feasible.
•
Future development and growth may create an impact on biological resources.
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources encompass archaeological, historical, and man-made features,
including buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites. As shown in Figure 3-5,
Culturally Sensitive Areas, and Figure 3-6, Paleontological Sensitivity Areas, within
the GTA, there are several cultural and paleontological sensitive areas throughout the
GTA. Cultural records indicate that a total of 519 sites containing known or potential
cultural resources have been recorded within the GTA. Of these 519 sites, 466 are
“prehistoric” archaeological and 54 are “historic” sites. Prehistoric sites typically
consist of habitation areas, bedrock milling sites, rock art, temporary camp sites, caves,
etc. Approximately 65 percent (341) of the known sites consist of “Bedrock Milling”
sites, which are areas where people processed food materials and are typically evidenced
by the presence of mortars and milling surfaces. A Sacred Lands file search by the
May 2010
3.2.4
•
3-8
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) indicated the presence of numerous
American Indian cultural resources on six of the 14 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle areas.
There are also three California-registered historical landmarks within the GTA. Old
Towne Tehachapi (Landmark No. 643) commemorates the oldest settlement in the
Tehachapi Valley. This settlement was established in the 1860s as an important station
on the road between Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. Tehachapi Loop
(Landmark No. 508) is a world-renowned railroad “loop” completed in 1876. Caliente
(Landmark No. 757), formerly known as “Allen’s Camp,” was the headquarters of the
Southern Pacific Railroad in 1875 while railroad track was constructed over Tehachapi
Pass. There are no National Register–listed properties within the GTA.
Issues
•
3.2.5
The GTA contains a variety of known cultural resources and culturally sensitive
areas that need to be accounted for and conserved as growth continues throughout
the GTA.
Mineral Resources
•
MRZ-2a – Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that
significant measured or indicated resources are present.
•
MRZ-2b – Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicated
that significant inferred resources are present.
The Monolith Portland Cement Company continues to operate a limestone quarry and
cement plant which is located in an MRZ-2a designated area just northeast of the City
of Tehachapi. Figure 3-7, Mineral Resources, illustrates the locations of these areas and
known mining sites.
Issues
•
The GTA contains existing mineral resources, including several oilwells, limestone
quarries and a cement plant. These existing uses need to be acknowledged to
ensure that sensitive uses do not encroach into these areas.
May 2010
Mining of various mineral resources within the GTA have occurred historically,
including production of antimony, clay, copper, gold, silver, tungsten, mercury, gypsum,
limestone, building stone, and sand and gravel. The California Geological Survey (CGS)
uses Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) classifications to indicate the presence (or lack
thereof) of measured or inferred mineral resources on lands across the state. The GTA
includes areas identified by the CGS Mineral Land Classification of Southeastern Kern
County as MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b. These classifications are defined as follows:
3-9
FIGURE 3-3 Sensitive
Species Areas
FIGURE 3-4
Oak Woodland/Forest Areas
FIGURE 3-5
Culturally Sensitive Areas
FIGURE 3-6
Paleontological Sensitivity Areas
FIGURE 3-7
Mineral Resources
3.2.6Air Quality
Tehachapi is known for its four-season climate, which can be considered special in
California. Average temperatures range from 87°F/57°F in July to 51°F/30°F in
January. Portions of the GTA typically collect 15 to 20 inches of snow each winter. The
GTA is also unique in that it lies within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) under
the jurisdiction of the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD), but is in
close proximity to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB).
Air Basins throughout the State of California, such as MDAB, are classified as either
attainment or nonattainment with respect to State and federal standards. Classifications
are determined by comparing actual monitored air pollutant concentrations to State
and federal standards. The attainment status of a region also affects the significant
threshold for air quality impacts and determines the permitting requirements for
proposed equipment. The federal and State governments have established ambient
air quality standards for seven criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Ozone, PM10, and
PM2.5 are generally considered regional pollutants because they or their precursors
affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are
considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM10 and PM2.5
are considered both localized and regional pollutants. In the area where the project is
located, PM10, PM2.5, and ozone are of particular concern. The established attainment
status limitations are shown in Table 3-2, KCAPCD Air Quality Attainment Status.
TABLE 3-2KCAPCD Air Quality Attainment Status
Designation/Classification
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
State Ambient Air
Quality Standards
KCAPCD
Kern River/
Cummings Valley
Indian Wells
Valley
Attainment
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Moderate
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Nonattainment
PM10
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Serious
Nonattainment
Attainment/
Maintenance
Nonattainment
PM2.5
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Unclassified
Carbon Monoxide
Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Unclassified
Unclassified
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Attainment
Unclassified
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Attainment
No Designation
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Part of KCAPCD
Area
Attainment
Ozone - 1 Hour
Ozone - 8 Hour
(0.08 ppm)
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Lead Particulates
May 2010
Pollutant
3-15
Table 3-3, Emissions From Existing Sources in the GTA (Tons/Year) identifies emissions
from existing sources throughout the GTA. The principal factors affecting air quality
in the GTA are the air transport phenomenon, automobile and truck travel, industrial
operations, agricultural operations, and rural and urban development.
TABLE 3-3Emissions from Existing Sources in the GTA
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
SOx
CO2*
61.8
12.51
219.24
33.07
31.83
0.65
16,018.90
Area Sources
City of Tehachapi
GTASP
147.25
18.85
518.07
79.79
76.80
1.56
25,050.22
Subtotal
209.05
31.36
737.31
112.86
108.63
2.21
41,069.12
Stationary Sources
203.79
1,276.48
4,040.90
47.53
n/a
0.30
n/a
360.58
393.08
3,626.66
116.58
26.53
1.29
130,411.80
Mobile Sources
City of Tehachapi
GTASP
Subtotal
Total Emissions
270.45
305.23
2,841.32
92.44
21.04
1.02
103,572.75
631.03
698.31
6,467.98
209.02
47.57
2.31
233,984.55
1,043.87
2,006.15
11,246.19
369.41
156.20
4.82
275,053.67
* CO2 emissions are reported in metric ton equivalents.
Issues
•
The GTA’s background ambient air quality is in non-attainment because it
exceeds the state and/or federal standards for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NOx and
actions need to be taken to protect and improve air quality.
•
Unmitigated future development will further impact air quality throughout the
GTA.
Over the past ten years, electricity generation in California has undergone a transition.
Historically, California has relied heavily on oil and gas fired plants to generate electricity.
Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives; however, California’s electrical
system has become more reliant on renewable energy sources, including cogeneration,
wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass conversion, transformation
plants, and small hydroelectric plants. Unlike petroleum production, generation of
electricity is usually not tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great
distances via the electrical grid.
Kern County plays an important role in the electrical system, due to its location on
the boundaries of the State’s largest gas and electric utilities (Pacific Gas & Electric,
Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas), and the existing electrical
generating plants in Kern County (primarily cogeneration, wind energy, peaker power
May 2010
3.2.7Renewable Energy
3-16
plants, and hydroelectric). There is also potential for expansion of these kinds of
electrical generating plants and the emergence of new kinds of energy development.
Energy generating technologies relevant to the GTASP include wind energy and some
solar energy. Transmission lines accompany virtually all types of electrical generation
and will continue to grow within the plan area. Transmission lines are often the
most noticeable and disruptive part of energy development. Increased development
of electrical generating plants will require new transmission line construction. New
transmission lines may also be constructed by the utility companies to increase capacity
in transporting power to areas in and outside of Kern County.
The increased use of renewable energy may have numerous positive environmental
and economic impacts on the GTA. The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), first
established by Senate Bill 1078 of 2002 and later increased and accelerated by Senate
Bill 107 of 2006 and Executive Order S-14-08 of 2008, currently calls for renewable
sources to provide 33 percent of California’s energy by 2020. This will further encourage
the development of new renewable energy projects within Kern County, with some new
projects potentially occurring in the GTA.
The General Plan Energy Element identifies five major sources of renewable energy
supplies that currently or may in the future play a role in Kern County:
•
Wind energy
•
Geothermal
•
Transformation (Waste-to-Energy)
•
Solar
•
Hydroelectric
The wind energy development in the Tehachapi Mountains is one of the State’s largest,
responsible for about 40 percent of the State’s total wind-generated power. In the late
1970s and early 1980s, there was rapid development of wind energy in California,
spurred by federal and State tax incentives and lucrative power sales contracts with
the utility companies. Individual wind turbine size has increased dramatically, from 25
to 110 kilowatts size of the early 1980s, to 1 to 3 megawatts. In the 1980s, the County
adopted a Wind Energy Combining District of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance,
which controls and minimizes the impacts of wind energy development.
Wind patterns within the GTA are characterized by prevailing winds traveling from the
San Joaquin Valley easterly into the Mojave Basin. Mountain passes, and particularly
the Tehachapi Pass, serve as transport corridors for this prevailing wind flow, creating
a wind flow condition conducive to capturing the wind energy created by elevated wind
speeds as wind flows are compressed through the relatively narrow mountain pass
May 2010
Wind Energy
3-17
corridors. Portions of the GTA near the Tehachapi Pass have wind conditions that may
be conducive to wind energy production. These locations are part of the Tehachapi
Wind Resource Area (TWRA). The TWRA is considered the largest wind resource area
in California and is situated at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, spreading
into the adjacent Mojave Desert. The diverse land within the TWRA range from high
desert floor to mountain pass, to tall mountains. Elevations range from 2,500 feet to
approximately 8,000 feet above sea level.
Within the boundaries of the TWRA, multiple projects have been approved to
accommodate the electrical facilities necessary to interconnect and integrate in excess
of 700 MW and up to approximately 4,500 MW of new wind generation. The first
project, the Southern California Edison (SCE) Antelope Transmission Project, was
implemented to enhance transmission and related infrastructure serving the TWRA.
This project began construction in 2009, with construction planned to occur in three
sequential segments:
•
Segment 1, Antelope-Pardee 500 kV Transmission Line;
•
Segment 2, Antelope-Vincent 500 kV Transmission Line; and,
•
Segment 3, Antelope-Tehachapi Transmission Line.
The Tehachapi Wind Resource Area is not a General Plan land use nor a zoning
designation. Prior to development of wind energy facilities, it is necessary to have a
Wind Energy Combining District overlay on the lands to be developed. Currently, a total
of 967 acres within the GTA have been assigned a Wind Energy Combining District
zoning designation. See Figure 3-8, Wind Energy Combining Districts and Tehachapi
Wind Resource Area, for further detail on the location of wind resources and Wind
Energy Combining Districts. Windfarms are operational on much of the land with this
zoning designation. Any future windfarms developed in the GTA would be regulated
by the KCGP Energy Element, and is implemented by the Wind Energy Combining
District of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.64).
Geothermal Energy
There are no commercial geothermal power plants within the GTA. According to
the KCGP Energy Element, there is currently no indication that the GTA offers the
high-temperature resources required for geothermal energy generation. Nevertheless,
May 2010
Additional development of SCE transmission lines, in a project known as the Tehachapi
Renewable Transmission Project, Segments 4-11 (TRTP), began construction in 2010.
This phase involves the construction, operation, and maintenance of new and upgraded
transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing right-ofway in southern Kern County, continuing south into Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties. Additional phases would result in the construction or upgrading of more
than 150 miles of additional transmission lines.
3-18
FIGURE 3-8
Wind Energy Combining
Districts and Tehachapi
Wind Resource Area
the KCGP supports the development of geothermal resources in appropriate areas,
including for smaller-scale space-heating applications.
Transformation (Waste-to-Energy)
Transformation projects convert agricultural and municipal wastes to fuel or electricity.
According to the KCGP Energy Element, the primary purpose of transformation
facilities is to dispose of waste; the production of energy is a useful by-product. There
are currently no transformation projects within the GTA. There is some potential for
future development of transformation facilities at the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill and
to serve agricultural uses in the area.
Solar Energy
There are currently no large-scale, commercial solar energy facilities in the GTA. The
KCGP Energy Element identifies solar energy as a major potential energy source, and
several facilities have been approved or are proposed within the County. Small-scale
solar energy systems serving individual residences are increasingly becoming more
prevalent. Solar energy is one of the major sources of electricity in the Alpine Forest
area of the GTA, where many residences are not connected to the regional electricity
grid.
Hydroelectric
According to the KCGP Energy Element, much of the major hydroelectric potential
within Kern County has already been captured by five facilities along the Kern River.
There is some potential for small hydroelectric facilities within the GTA.
•
Renewable energy resources will become increasingly important and will be
critical to addressing local and regional energy needs; however, development of
such uses could be incompatible with surrounding land uses or detrimental to
certain natural resources.
•
Public safety concerns may arise related to the development of some renewable
resource technologies.
3.2.8Parks and Recreation
There are two parks and recreation entities for the GTA: the County of Kern Parks
and Recreation Department and the Tehachapi Valley Recreation and Parks District
(TVRPD). Planned communities in the GTA, such as Bear Valley Springs, Stallion
Springs, and Golden Hills, also offer private recreational opportunities. The County
May 2010
Issues
3-20
of Kern Parks and Recreation Department operates the regional Tehachapi Mountain
Park, which is located eight miles southwest of the city of Tehachapi (see Figure
3-1). This 5,000-acre park is located in the Tehachapi Mountains below Wood’s Peak
(elevation 7,986 feet). The Tehachapi Mountain Park has picnic, camping and cabin
facilities, equestrian trail riding, and hiking. Camping and cabin facilities require
payment of fees for use.
The TVPRD is a joint district comprising the County of Kern and the City of
Tehachapi. The duty of the TVPRD is to acquire, construct, and operate recreational
facilities, and to employ persons to maintain and operate facilities. TVPRD owns and/
or maintains over 115 acres of parkland in the city and GTA. There are also numerous
privately-owned recreational facilities throughout the GTA.
Issues
There are several recreational sites throughout the GTA, such as the Golden Hills
golf course, which are currently vacant and unmaintained. Support the acqusition
of land, public or private, by appropriate agencies (e.g., CSD, TVPRD) that has
become vacant and/or non-maintained for use in the development of recreational
facilities.
•
Parks and public recreational facilities require continued maintenance that can
result in long term financial and resource expenditures to the developer and/or
public agency.
Conservation Element Goals,
Policies, and implementation
measures
Based on the existing conditions in the GTA and the planning assumptions and issues
outlined above, along with public outreach input, the following Conservation and Open
Space Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures have been identified for the GTA.
These will provide direction for project-level land use development. The goals, policies,
and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan are also hereby
incorporated by reference. When discrepancies exist between the General Plan and
the GTASP, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. The Kern County Planning
Director shall determine which policy is more restrictive should conflicts arise.
May 2010
3.3
•
3-21
3.3.1
Water Resources
Goals
GOAL COS.1Ensure that the GTA can accommodate projected future growth
and development while maintaining a safe and healthful
environment and prosperous economy by guiding development
away from hazardous areas, and assuring the provision of
adequate public services and infrastructure.
GOAL COS.2Encourage water conservation to reduce demand for limited
water resources and maintain a balance between water supply
and water consumption.
Policies
Policy COS.1
The County shall require adherence to any applicable UWMP
within the Specific Plan area and participate in 5-year annual
updates to the UWMP.
Policy COS.2Ensure that water quality standards are maintained for
existing users and future development and that water-related
infrastructure is provided in an efficient and cost effective
manner.
Support water purveyors in developing plans for responding to
droughts and the effects of global climate change, including
contingency plans and the sharing of water resources to improve
overall water supply reliability for the existing and future needs
of the GTA.
Policy COS.4Encourage the use of low-impact landscaping development
techniques, such as the installation of permeable surfaces for
hardscape applications. Impervious surfaces such as driveways,
streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is
available to absorb storm water and reduce polluted urban
runoff.
Policy COS.5Require the use of drought- and fire-tolerant landscaping in all
development areas.
Policy COS.6
May 2010
New high-consumptive water uses, such as lakes and golf
courses, etc. shall provide evidence of additional verified
Policy COS.3
3-22
sources of water other than local groundwater. Other sources
may include recycled stormwater or wastewater.
Policy COS.7Encourage effective groundwater resource management while
promoting water conservation and water recycling/reuse in all
new development and building design.
Policy COS.8Require the use of feasible and practical best management
practices (BMPs) to protect surface water and groundwater
from the adverse effects of construction activities and postconstruction runoff, including storm-water runoff.
Policy COS.10
Implement water conservation as a part of any development
proposal and utilize water banking as a tool to provide a safe
and reliable water source for future residents.
Policy COS.11
Discretionary projects shall analyze watershed impacts and
reduce impacts from construction-related and urban pollutants,
as well as alterations of flow patterns and introduction of
impervious surfaces to prevent the degradation of the watershed
to the extent such measures are practical.
Policy COS.12Encourage drainage designs which retain or detain stormwater
run-off to minimize volume and pollutant concentrations.
Policy COS.13
Minimize the alteration of natural drainage areas. Require
development plans to include necessary mitigation to stabilize
runoff and silt deposition through utilization of grading and
flood-protection ordinances. Conserve areas along rivers and
streams to enhance drainage, flood control, recreational, and
other beneficial uses while acknowledging existing land use
patterns.
Policy COS.14Encourage utilization of wastewater treatment facilities which
provide for the reuse of wastewater and require the highest
possible quality of wastewater treatment to increase the
May 2010
Policy COS.9Require all discretionary actions submit proof of the availability
of a sufficient water supply via connection to an existing CSD
(which must have an adopted Urban Water Management Plan
and necessary infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of water),
annexation to the City of Tehachapi, evidence of available
groundwater/well sources, or through the use of contracted
banked water.
3-23
potential use of recycled water for existing and future needs of
the GTA.
Policy COS.15Encourage retrofitting of existing development and agricultural
irrigation with water-conserving devices, such as drip or microdrip irrigation systems, weather-based irrigation controllers,
and water-efficient plumbing fixtures.
Policy COS.16
The County shall encourage coordination between all water
providers and land owners throughout the GTA to develop and
maintain a Development Rights Transfer Program which would
allow property owners to sell their individual development rights
on outlining areas less suitable for development for the purpose
of maintaining an efficient use of existing water supply.
Policy COS.17
The County shall coordinate with City of Tehachapi, TehachapiCummings County Water District and other water purveyors
within the GTA to pursue funding to support infrastructure
improvements, specifically improvements that would allow for
increased pumping of water into the plan area.
Implementation 2 The County shall cooperate with water supply and wastewater
treatment providers in the planning, development, and
construction of water and wastewater facilities needed to
transmit, treat, store, and distribute recycled potable and nonpotable water supplies. Policies COS.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14
Implementation 3 Throughout the development process, the County shall
ensure that all new development incorporates construction
standards which protect groundwater quality by incorporating
comprehensive well construction standards and groundwater
protection strategies for identified degraded watersheds.
Policies COS.1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14
May 2010
Implementation 1 The County shall assist local water districts and agencies
in developing water conservation strategies that ultimately
reduce the demand for peak-hour water supply and wastewater
capacity. These may include the development of an Urban
Water Management Plan or other water conserving strategies
or programs. Policy COS.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14
3-24
Implementation 4 All discretionary development proposals shall implement a
water-wise program that includes all feasible measures to
reduce water use and establish a Maximum Applied Water
Allowance (MAWA) budget for each lot or home. The MAWA
shall be calculated based on standards established by the CSD
serving the individual project or on a project-by-project basis as
determined by the Kern County Planning Department during
the discretionary review process. Policies COS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 16
Implementation 5 Continue conservation efforts and actively pursue water storage
and source alternatives, including dry year water transfer
options and use and production of reclaimed water. Policies
COS.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14
Implementation 6 All development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure that
landscaping is designed to reduce water demand, retain water
runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater. Droughtand fire-tolerant plant materials shall be incorporated in all
new development. Policies COS.2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Implementation 8 All discretionary development proposals shall include the
submittal of erosion and sediment control plans. The project
shall be designed according to the recommendations of the plan
and to prevent increased discharge of sediment at all stages of
grading and development. Policies COS.7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14
Implementation 9 All development proposals shall incorporate the use of bioswale
landscape elements or other natural features to reduce runoff,
trap sediment, and increase on-site infiltration, whenever
feasible. Policies COS.2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Implementation 10 All new discretionary and ministerial development proposals
shall incorporate, when feasible, water conservation techniques
with the goal of reducing individual water use and limiting
outdoor water use. Such techniques include, but are not limited
May 2010
Implementation 7 All development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure that the
plans incorporate permeable surfaces in outdoor landscaping
and pedestrian areas unless technical studies and/or engineering
studies indicate they are infeasible. Permeable surfaces may
include porous asphalt, decomposed granite or other aggregate,
landscape materials, or other paving materials that are porous.
Policies COS.2, 3, 4, 5, 6
3-25
to: use of low-flow plumbing fixtures on new construction, use
of high-efficiency irrigation systems for new development and
retrofitting of existing development and agricultural irrigation,
use of graywater for landscaping, use of reclaimed water
resources for reasonable and beneficial use, and use of droughttolerant vegetation. Policy COS.8
Implementation 11 The County shall encourage effective groundwater resource
management for the long-term benefit of the County through
the following:
a. Promote groundwater recharge activities in various zone
districts.
b. Support for the development of Urban Water Management
Plans and promote Department of Water Resources grant
funding for all water providers.
c. Support the development of Groundwater Management
Plans.
d. Support the development of future sources of additional
surface water and groundwater, including conjunctive
use, recycled water, conservation, additional storage
of surface water, and groundwater and desalination.
Policies COS.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Implementation 13 New discretionary development shall require consultation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California
Department of Fish and Game if potential waters of the U.S.
or wetlands are present on site. Preservation of wetlands shall
be the primary consideration; otherwise, mitigation measures
pursuant to CEQA shall be implemented. Policies COS.2, 13
Implementation 14Require a flood hazard study for new discretionary development
within Floodplain Areas as designated by Map Code 2.5 and
require the floodplain constraints with all zone changes. New
construction located within the flood hazard zones shall conform
to the Kern County Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance.
Policies COS.12, 13
May 2010
Implementation 12 The County shall encourage existing developments and
agricultural irrigation to retrofit existing facilities with waterconserving devices, such as drip or micro-drip irrigation
systems, weather-based irrigation controllers, and waterefficient plumbing fixtures. Policy COS.15
3-26
Implementation 15Require preparation of a drainage plan to retain drainage on
site in accordance with the County Drainage Ordinance as a
condition of approval of any land division, conditional use
permit (CUP), or site plan review. The drainage plan shall be
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Kern County
Floodplain Management Section of the Department of
Engineering and Survey Services for review and approval prior
to development. Drainage shall conform to the Kern County
Development Standards and the County Grading Ordinance.
Policies COS.12, 13
Implementation 16 All discretionary development permits shall require that the
project be served by adequate water systems via the annexation
to the City of Tehachapi or into an existing Community Services
District (CSD). In the event that a proposed development
cannot be annexed into a CSD, the project proponent shall
utilize one of the following options:
Option A: All general plan requests, zone changes and land
division shall be limited to a minimum of 40 acre parcel size.
Option B: Development shall be limited to one single-family
house and one secondary or additional dwelling unit per existing
lot when permitted by the existing base zone district.
1. Submit a Water Supply Assessment which demonstrates
that a long-term water supply (for a 20-year timeframe) is
available for the proposed project. The water assessment
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Source and quantity of historical water use on the site.
b. Estimated water consumption of the proposed
development and the estimated storage, if any,
required to meet the projected need. “Projected need”
includes water required for fire protection.
c. Recommendations for additional sources of water
to address demand shortage. Such measures may
include, but are not limited to, development of future
May 2010
Option C: The applicant shall provide information which
demonstrates that there are sufficient alternative water
resources to serve the proposed project, other than those that
would otherwise be provided by a CSD. This information is to
be analyzed during the required CEQA review process and shall
include, but is not limited to, each of the following:
3-27
sources of additional surface water and groundwater,
including water transfers; conjunctive use; reclaimed
water; conservation; additional storage of surface
water; and groundwater.
2. Submit a Water Conservation Plan that identifies the
specific water conservation practices to be implemented
by the project. Implementation includes, but it not
limited to the following:
a. Use of recycled water for all landscaping.
b. Use of drought- and fire-tolerant landscaping in-lieu
of traditional sod.
c. Establishment of a Water Allocation Budget.
3. Submit evidence the water usage of the proposed project
will be offset by the acquisition of land use entitlements
from other properties within the GTA or by other means
as deemed appropriate by the County. This evidence can
take the form of the following:
a. Process a Specific Plan Amendment to reduce the
development capacity of other properties within the
GTA
b. Acquisition of land use development rights as obtained
through an accepted Development Rights Transfer
Program.
Policies COS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Goals
GOAL COS.3Preserve and protect scenic and natural resources and open space
within the GTA.
Policies
Policy COS.18
Discourage new ridgeline development, including structure
elevations that protrude above major ridgelines.
Policy COS.19
Coordinate with federal, State, and other appropriate public
agencies, private organizations, and landowners to conserve,
protect, and enhance natural resources.
May 2010
3.3.2Scenic and Natural Resources
3-28
Policy COS.20Encourage development clustering, thereby preserving open
space and natural resources.
Policy COS.21
Locate development in areas with minimal environmental
constraints that are therefore most suitable for clustering.
Policy COS.22Encourage “green infrastructure” such as urban forests, parks,
open space, and natural drainage systems.
Policy COS.23
Comply with dark sky lighting guidelines as established by the
Kern County Zoning Ordinance to preserve night-time views,
prevent light pollution, and minimize impacts on wildlife.
Implementation 17 All discretionary development that proposes new structures on
or near a ridgeline, or for proposals within an otherwise scenic
region as determined by the County, must conduct a visual
impact analysis using line-of-sight exhibits from various points
of view, to be determined by the County. These exhibits shall
illustrate the structure’s elevations in relation to the ridgeline
or scenic point of interest, and shall by accompanied by a site
plan showing topography and the proposed location of the
buildings. Policy COS.18
Implementation 19 All discretionary development proposals that are within
identified environmental hazard areas shall submit the
appropriate technical studies, as determined by the Kern
County Planning Department, to identify the most suitable
area for development within the property. Policies COS.19, 20
Implementation 20 The County shall encourage the use of strategic growth
principles, clustering, and various implementing tools,
including the use of the OS (Open Space) zoning district for
new development for the purpose of preserving open space and
natural resources. Policies COS.20, 21, 22
May 2010
Implementation 18 All development projects shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapter 19.88 (Hillside Development) of the Kern County
Zoning Ordinance. Projects shall be reviewed for compliance
with the ordinance to minimize the impacts of development on
scenic resources in the GTA. Policy COS.18
3-29
Implementation 21 All discretionary development proposals and ministerial projects
shall be subject to the Dark Skies development principles,
as specified by the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. These
provisions include requirements that outdoor light fixtures be
oriented downward and are fully shielded. Policy COS.23
Implementation 22 The County shall support requests to add the SC (Scenic
Corridor) combining zone district to properties adjacent to
scenic portions of highways, as determined by the County, to
preserve the scenery along these highways. Policies COS.19, 20
3.3.3Biological Resources
Goals
GOAL COS.4 Continue to protect threatened and endangered plant and wildlife
species, habitats, and wetlands throughout the GTA.
GOAL COS.5Preserve and maintain open space, natural habitat, and
vegetation communities that support native plants and animals.
Continue to conserve oak tree woodlands for their environmental
value and scenic beauty. Protect Oak woodlands and large oak
trees where possible and incorporate existing trees into project
design and construction.
Policies
Policy COS.24
Protect threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species,
habitats, and wetlands in accordance with State and federal
laws.
Policy COS.25
The County shall work closely with State and federal agencies
to assure that discretionary projects avoid or minimize impacts
to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources.
Policy COS.26
The County will seek cooperative efforts with local, State, and
federal agencies to protect listed threatened and endangered
plant and wildlife species through the use of conservation plans
May 2010
GOAL COS.6
3-30
and other methods promoting management and conservation
of habitat lands.
Policy COS.27
The County shall support public awareness initiatives to help
educate property owners and the development community
of local, State, and federal programs concerning endangered
species conservation issues.
Policy COS.28
The County, under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), shall solicit comments
from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service when an environmental document
(Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or
Environmental Impact Report) is prepared.
Policy COS.29
Promote the conservation of oak tree woodlands for their
environmental value and scenic beauty. Oak woodlands
and large oak trees shall be protected where possible and
incorporated into project developments.
Implementation 24 All discretionary development proposals requiring preparation
of an environmental document shall consult with responsible
and trustee wildlife agencies, including but not limited to the
California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Policies COS.24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Implementation 25 All discretionary development proposals for project sites that
are located within known sensitive species shall be accompanied
by a written Biological Survey. The report shall be submitted as
a part of the discretionary application process and shall include
an analysis of the known and potential sensitive species located
within the project area and shall include recommendations for
project-specific mitigation. Policies COS.24, 25, 26, 27, 28
May 2010
Implementation 23 Work with the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy,
Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish
and Game, U.S. Forest Service, and other appropriate public
agencies, private entities and landowners to conserve, protect
and enhance open space and wildlife habitat areas. Policies
COS.24, 25, 26, 27, 28
3-31
Implementation 26 The County shall explore the development and implementation
of conservation programs with State and federal wildlife
agencies for property owners desiring streamlined endangered
species mitigation programs. Policies COS.24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Implementation 27 Where feasible, the County shall support efforts to secure
key wildlife migration corridors and habitat areas through
dedication, easements, or other acquisition mechanisms.
Policies COS.24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Implementation 28Riparian areas will be managed in accordance with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish
and Game rules and regulations to enhance drainage, flood
control, biological, recreational, and other beneficial uses while
acknowledging existing land use patterns. Policies COS.24, 25,
26, 27, 28
a. Development parcels containing oak woodlands are
subject to a minimum canopy coverage retention standard
of thirty percent (30%). The consultant shall include
recommendations regarding thinning and diseased tree
removal in conjunction with the discretionary project.
b. Use of aerial photography and a dot grid system shall be
considered adequate in determining the required canopy
coverage standard.
c. Adjustments below thirty percent (30%) minimum canopy
standard may be made based on a report to assess the
management of oak woodlands.
d. Discretionary development, within areas designated as
meeting the minimum canopy standard, shall avoid the
area beneath and within the trees unaltered drip line unless
approved by a licensed or certified arborist or botanist.
Policy COS.30
May 2010
Implementation 29 The following applies to all discretionary development projects
(General Plan Amendment, zone change, conditional use
permit, tract maps, parcel maps, precise development plan)
that contain oak woodlands, which are defined as development
parcels having canopy cover by oak trees of at least ten percent
(10%), as determined from base line aerial photography or
by site survey performed by a licensed or certified arborist or
botanist. If this study is used in an Environmental Impact
Report, then a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) shall
perform the necessary analysis.
3-32
Implementation 30 The following applies to development of parcels having oak tree
canopy cover of less than ten percent (10%), but containing
individual oak trees equal to or greater than a 12-inch diameter
trunk at 4.5 feet breast height.
a. Such trees shall be identified on plot plans.
b. Discretionary development shall avoid the area beneath
and within the trees unaltered drip line unless approved by
a licensed or certified arborist or botanist.
c. Specified tree removal related to the discretionary action
may be granted by the decision making body upon showing
that a hardship exists based on substantial evidence in the
record. Policy COS.30
3.3.4
Cultural Resources
Goals
GOAL COS.7 Promote the protection of archeological and historic resources
that are important to the culture and history of the GTA.
Policies
Policy COS.30Encourage the preservation of cultural and historic resources
which provide ties with the past and constitute a heritage value
to residences and visitors.
Implementation 31 All discretionary development projects shall submit a
Cultural Resources Records Search prepared by California
State University Bakersfield. The report shall be submitted
as a part of the discretionary application process and shall
include recommendations regarding the need for a physical
archaeological study on the site. All discretionary projects
that are located within a culturally-sensitive area, as identified
by Figure 3-4 in the GTASP, or as required by California
State University, Bakersfield consultation, shall submit an
archaeological study. Policy COS.30
May 2010
3-33
3.3.5
Mineral Resources
Goals
GOAL COS.8 To protect mineral resources from unnecessary urban/suburban
encroachments, and in instances of urban/suburban development
in mineral or oil resources areas, to provide for the development
of such resources in a manner compatible with the surrounding
environment to minimize adverse impacts and protect public
health and safety.
Policies
Policy COS.31
Prohibit non mineral-resource related development in areas of
the GTA that have been identified by the California Geological
Survey “Mineral Land Classification of Southeastern Kern
County” as MRZ-2a and MRZ-2b.
Policy COS.32Ensure adequate minimum setbacks between the construction
of any structure and existing mines or wells, as specified by the
Kern County Fire Department and the State Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR).
Policy COS.33Require all oilfield development to take place in accordance
with DOGGR regulations and all mining-related development
to take place in accordance with the requirements of the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA).
Implementation 32 All proposals to amend this plan shall be reviewed to ensure
that the proposal would not result in the potential for sensitive
uses to occur within close proximity to an existing mining
operation or oilfield-related development. Policy COS.31
Implementation 33 All development proposals which would place non-mineral
resource development within one mile of a known mining
operation shall be reviewed to ensure that the proposed use
would not conflict with the existing mining operation. Should
potential incompatibilities be identified, the County shall not
support the project unless those potential impacts can be
mitigated to a less than significant level. Policies COS.31, 32, 33
May 2010
3-34
Implementation 34 The County shall discourage the rezoning of any Statedesignated mineral resource areas to residential or commercial
zone districts to protect them from loss to urban development.
Policies COS.31, 32, 33
3.3.6Air Quality
Goals
GOAL COS.9 Protect and improve air quality in the Greater Tehachapi Area.
GOAL COS.10Reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by promoting
greater energy efficiency and conservation, and through the use
of renewable resources.
Policy COS.34
Cooperate with the Kern County Air Pollution Control District
(KCAPCD) to implement Air Quality Attainment Plans and to
meet federal and State standards.
Police COS.35
Include fugitive dust control measures, as required by the
KCAPCD, as conditions of approval for discretionary projects
and subdivision maps.
Policy COS.36
The air quality implications of new discretionary land
use proposals shall be considered in approval of major
developments. Special emphasis will be placed on minimizing
air quality degradation to meet attainment goals as established
by the KCAPCD.
Policy COS.37
The County shall support the efforts of the KCAPVD to reduce
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
Policy COS.38Enforce the Kern County Grading Ordinance through
Engineering and Survey Services, along with dust control and
other KCAPCD regulations to mitigate air quality effects during
construction and rehabilitation of new and existing structures.
Policy COS.39Encourage development which facilitates alternative modes
of transportation such as walking, biking, and public
transportation to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
associated with automobile use.
May 2010
Policies
3-35
Policy COS.40
Promote energy-efficient design features and green building
measures, including appropriate site orientation, use of lighter
color roofing and building materials, and use of deciduous shade
trees and windbreak materials to reduce fuel consumption for
heating and cooling.
Policy COS.41
The County will work with the State, Kern COG, and local
governments in the implementation of AB 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006; SB 375 (2008), the Smart Growth/
Climate Change through Regional Housing and Transportation
Planning Act; and AB 1358 (2008), the Complete Streets Act.
Implementation 35 Participate with the California Air Resources Board and/or the
Kern County Air Pollution Control District on programs to
reduce transportation pollution. Policies COS.34, 35, 36, 37, 41
Implementation 36 All discretionary permits shall be referred to the Kern County
Air Pollution Control District for review and comment. Policies
COS.34, 35, 36, 37, 41
Implementation 38 All new discretionary development proposals shall include
mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval to reduce
any air quality impacts resulting from construction and
operational stages. Policies COS.34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41
Implementation 39 All new discretionary development proposals shall include
mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval to require
that construction complies with the Kern County Grading
Ordinance and all adopted applicable dust control measures
of the Kern County Air Pollution Control District. Policies
COS.37, 38
May 2010
Implementation 37 All new discretionary development proposals which may emit
air emissions that exceed the thresholds established by the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District may be required to submit
an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA), including greenhouse
gas emission equivalents as a part of the discretionary
application process. The Planning Department shall determine
the necessity of an AQIA during the preliminary review of
each discretionary application. Policies COS.34, 35, 36, 37, 41
3-36
Implementation 40 All new residential development proposals shall include a
design for safe and efficient vehicle access to commercial land
uses from arterial streets to ensure efficient vehicular ingress
and egress. Policies COS.34, 37, 39, 40, 41
Implementation 41 The County shall consult with the local transit agency and
incorporate all appropriate and feasible transit amenities into
development projects. Policies COS.34, 36, 39
Implementation 42 The County shall ensure development projects create the
maximum opportunity for the use of alternative modes
of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public
transportation. Policy COS.39
3.3.7Renewable Energy
Goals
GOAL COS.11Encourage development which conserves and reduces energy
consumption.
GOAL COS.12Encourage the development of renewable energy resources.
GOAL COS.13Promote the safe and orderly development of wind and solar
energy as a clean method of generating electricity while providing
for the protection of the environment.
Policy COS.42Encourage the use and development of alternative energy
sources, such as wind and solar where land use and other
constraints are minimal, the use is not visually obtrusive, and it
contributes to continued sustainability of the community.
Policy COS.43
Support efforts to provide the necessary infrastructure and
transmission capacity to accommodate renewable energy
resources, such as wind energy farms, photovoltaic panels on
structures, and commercial solar projects, and support efforts
to create a “smart grid” energy system.
Policy COS.44Encourage green and sustainable development and building
guidelines that promote energy conservation and minimize
direct and indirect air emissions and promote energy-efficient
May 2010
Policies
3-37
Policy COS.45
All wind energy development shall be subject to the development
standards of Kern County Zoning Ordinance.
Policy COS.46
The County should monitor the activities of other local, State,
and federal agencies relating to wind energy projects in the
GTA, and present comment and testimony as necessary when
the County’s interests to avoid unnecessary impediments to
energy development.
Policy COS.47
The County shall work with the wind energy industry to
maximize electrical potential while assuring that military flight
operations, communication facilities and visual conflicts for
neighboring property owners are addressed.
Policy COS.48
The County should actively monitor the actions of local, State,
and federal agencies relating to wind energy development in
the GTA, and lobby and present its position on such matters as
needed to protect the County interests and avoid unnecessary
impediments to energy development.
Policy COS.49
The County should encourage the development and upgrading
of transmission lines and associated facilities (e.g., substations)
as needed to serve GTA residents and access the County’s
generating resources, insofar as transmission lines do not create
significant environmental or public health and safety hazards.
Policy COS.50
The County shall review all proposed transmission lines and
their alignments for conformity with this Specific Plan.
Policy COS.51
In reviewing proposals for new transmission lines and/or
capacity, the County should assert a preference for upgrade of
existing lines and use of existing corridors where feasible.
Policy COS.52 The County should work with other agencies in establishing
routes for proposed transmission lines.
Implementation 43 The County shall encourage the incorporation of alternative energy
features in project design and construction. The County shall
consider these types of design features for projects utilizing the CL
May 2010
design features to reduce fuel consumption for heating and
cooling.
3-38
(Cluster Combining) in determining whether a project has met the
development standards of the CL District, as specified by Section
19.58.150.B. Policies COS.42, 44
Implementation 44 The County shall support proposals to add the Wind Energy
Combining (WE) Zone District to parcels where development
of wind energy would not conflict with surrounding land use
entitlements and development in order to promote the use of wind
energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. Policies COS.42, 43, 44, 45, 48
Implementation 45 All development proposals shall be subject to the adopted State
Green Building Standards Code for sustainability and energy
conservation. This requirement shall be applied to new development
proposals through the development review and building permit
processes. Policy COS.44
Implementation 46 The County should promote a continuing dialogue with wind
energy industry representatives to monitor trends in wind energy
development and technology. Policies COS.42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48
Implementation 47 The County should monitor the supply and demand of electrical
transmission capacity locally and statewide. Policies COS.49, 50, 51,
52, 53
Implementation 48 The County shall continue to maintain provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance and update as necessary to provide for transmission line
development. Policies COS.49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Implementation 50Require that all wind turbines installed within the GTA be equipped
with safety and engineering features to prevent excess rotor speed,
to minimize the risk of tower failure, and to maintain personnel
health and safety. Policies COS.42, 45
3.3.8Parks and Recreation
Goals
GOAL COS.11
May 2010
Improve parks and recreational availability in the Greater
Tehachapi Area.
Implementation 49Require that all wind energy development within the GTA adhere
to the setback requirements of the WE Zone District of the Kern
County Zoning Ordinance. Policies COS.42, 45
3-39
Policies
Policy COS.53Encourage the development of additional park facilities
throughout the GTA.
Policy COS.54
Improve and maintain existing vacant recreational sites
throughout the GTA and encourage the Tehachapi Valley Park
and Recreation District to acquire privately owned vacant
recreational facilities and convert them to public use.
Policy COS.55Encourage the use of land use classifications to implement the
development of additional park and recreational areas.
Implementation 51 Support attempts by the Tehachapi Valley Park and Recreation
District to acquire privately owned recreational facilities that have
become vacant and/or non-maintained. Policy COS.54
Implementation 52 All discretionary development proposals that include multi-family
development shall include landscaping and common-usable space
areas as required by the Special Development Standards in the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.80). The County shall also encourage
the inclusion of parks, open space areas, and natural drainage design
features in all new development. Policy 53
May 2010
3-40
Chapter 4
circulation
4.1PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan (GTASP) Circulation Element identifies the
general location and extent of existing and proposed major highways, transportation
routes, and other alternative transportation modes. Residents of both the Greater
Tehachapi Area (GTA) and the City of Tehachapi share the GTA roadway network
through city streets and rural county roads. Additionally, the circulation element
includes information on above- and below-ground transmission facilities, trails,
railroads, and aircraft facilities.
The Circulation Element establishes goals, policies, and implementation measures
intended to help accomplish local objectives related to transportation and circulation
in the GTA. These goals, policies, and implementation measures are intended to address
the anticipated effects of future development on transportation and circulation in the
plan area.
Assembly Bill 1358, better known as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008
(Complete Streets Act), requires that, upon any substantive revision of the General
Plan’s Circulation Element, the community’s circulation plan be modified to plan for
a balanced, multimodal circulation system. The new circulation plan must be designed
to meet the needs of all users of area roadways, defined to include motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrians, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods,
and users of public transportation.
A range of actions may be taken to encourage the use of multiple modes of transportation
and comply with state requirements. The GTASP Circulation Element incorporates
goals, policies, and implementation measures that address the Complete Streets Act’s
requirements.
•
Expressway (Four Travel Lanes) Minimum 110-foot right-of-way
•
Arterial (Major Highway)
Minimum 110-foot right-of-way
•
Collector (Secondary Highway) Minimum 90-foot right-of-way
•
Local Street (Select Local Road) Minimum 60-foot right-of-way
The Kern County Land Division and Zoning Ordinances provide roadway development
standards, including design sections and access requirements, which will be implemented
in the GTA. The GTASP has retained the existing roadway classifications for most
May 2010
CHAPTER 4 Circulation Element
Geographically, the GTA includes three mountain valleys with limited regional access
to the San Joaquin Valley to the west and the Mojave Desert to the east. Transportation
facilities consist of roadways, transit service, rail lines, and airports. The Kern County
General Plan provides the following roadway designations for use throughout nonjurisdictional areas of the county:
4-2
streets within the GTA. However, based on analyses conducted during the preparation
of this Circulation Element, it was determined that certain roadway segments could
not feasibly be constructed to the standard width of their existing classifications due
to physical constraints, or would not be developed to the proposed width due to the
lack of anticipated need. A small number of roadways have an updated classification
which allows for wider street width. The GTA’s new roadway classifications are shown
in Figure 4-1, Roadways Map.
4.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND ISSUES
4.2.1 General Circulation and Roadways
Some traffic congestion exists within the GTA along State Route (SR) 202 between the
Cummings Valley and the Tehachapi Valley. This congestion is largely associated with
traffic generated by the California Correctional Institute (CCI). Congestion along SR202 increases travel time for residents of the Cummings Valley, Stallion Springs, and
Bear Valley Springs areas, as SR-202 provides the primary access route into and out
of these communities. Any future expansion of the CCI facility, or communities within
the western half of the GTA, will require mitigation of additional impacts to SR-202,
which may include widening. Additionally, a number of road segments are forecasted to
have capacity deficiencies with continuing growth. This is largely because the existing
rural road network is made up of two-lane roads with limited ability to handle increased
traffic volumes. The County has established Transportation Impact Fee programs for
portions of the GTA as shown in Figure 4-2, Transportation Impact Fee Areas, within
the GTA. Development within this area is subject to a payment of a traffic impact
fee which is allocated for future improvements in the area. The County will need to
continue to reexamine funding sources for additional road improvements to mitigate
existing and forecasted capacity deficiencies, as well as for on-going maintenance.
•
The local desire to preserve the rural character in portions of the GTA will
likely result in the continuing use of rural road standards (County Development
Standard Type B) in some areas which do not provide for bicycle lane and
pedestrian sidewalk improvements.
•
The existing circulation and transportation infrastructure pattern will remain
predominantly unchanged, as no new backbone circulation facilities are
anticipated due to the physical and topographical limitations within the plan
area.
May 2010
Issues
4-3
FIGURE 4-1
Roadways Map
•
The communities of Stallion Springs and Bear Valley Springs have essentially
one vehicular access point, SR-202. Although additional roads currently provide
access from these communities to the San Joaquin Valley, these roads are winding
and unpaved. During certain times of the year, these roads are only accessible
by all-terrain vehicles. The County and residents of these communities have
attempted to procure additional access opportunities, particularly for emergency
purposes.
•
The County’s transportation impact fee programs in the GTA will likely be the
primary source of funding for circulation facility improvements.
4.2.2 Trails and Bicycle/Equestrian/Pedestrian Networks
There are limited bicycle, equestrian, hiking, and pedestrian networks on the rural
roads in the GTA. The four-season weather also limits these alternative modes of
transportation in the winter. Most of the existing and planned bicycle/pedestrian
facilities are located within the city of Tehachapi. The “Freedom Trail” bike/pedestrian
path runs from Golden Hills into the city and connects to a Class I bicycle path. In 2001,
Kern COG adopted the Kern County Bicycle Facilities Plan, which identified specific
bicycle routes within and adjacent to the City of Tehachapi. Please refer to Figure
4-3, Kern County Bicycle Facilities Plan – Tehachapi Area. The planned communities
of Golden Hills, Bear Valley Springs, and Stallion Springs offer equestrian trails and
hiking opportunities, as does Tehachapi Mountain Park. The Pacific Crest Trail, a
2,650-mile national scenic trail that runs from Mexico to Canada through California,
Oregon, and Washington, crosses Kern County just east of the GTA.
With implementation of the Complete Streets Act requirements specified in the Kern
County General Plan and the supporting goals, policies, and implementation measures
in this Specific Plan, it is anticipated that improved facilities serving non-vehicular
users of roadways will become available over time. These facilities may include an
expanded sidewalk network, bicycle lanes, and trails.
•
There are limited non-vehicular circulation facilities and a general lack of
connectivity between communities within the GTA, exacerbating use of the
automobile and vehicle-miles-traveled. Pedestrian and bicycle routes need to be
retrofitted into existing communities and planned into new development. Because
of the generally long travel distances within the GTA, it is likely many of these
routes will serve primarily recreational rather than commuting purposes.
•
Existing road and railroad rights-of-way, utility easements, and permanent open
space areas will provide opportunities for new bicycle and pedestrian trail routes.
•
Due to the presence of multiple land management agencies in the GTA, including
individual public and private land owners, coordination of efforts must be
undertaken to plan for and develop comprehensive trail systems.
May 2010
Issues
4-5
FIGURE 4-2
Traffic Impact
Fee Areas
•
4.2.3
The future establishment and realignment of trails, including the Pacific Crest
Trail, may be impacted by the property rights of private and public property
owners throughout the GTA.
Transit Services
Kern Regional Transit provides fixed-route and para-transit (demand responsive or DialA-Ride) services in the County. The East Kern Express provides fixed route scheduled
services for the communities of Tehachapi, Bakersfield, Keene, Mojave, Rosamond,
and Lancaster. Up to seven trips are provided Monday through Friday; three trips
operate on Saturday, and two trips operate on Sunday. For trips to Bakersfield, Mojave,
Rosamond or Lancaster, passengers board the East Kern Express bus in Old Towne
or at the Tehachapi K-Mart. The East Kern Express route and stops within the GTA
are depicted in Figure 4-4, Transit Map. The Tehachapi para-transit service operates
Monday through Friday in the GTA. Additional regional bus service is provided by
Amtrak Thruway bus service. Amtrak buses operate daily between Bakersfield and
Barstow with stops in Tehachapi and Mojave.
Issues
•
There has been a lack of funds and ridership demand for buses serving passengers
wishing to travel from Tehachapi to surrounding communities.
4.2.4 Rail Services and Aircraft Operations
The rail corridor has been considered for the proposed California Long Haul and Short
Haul Rail Corridor and is planned for the construction of California High-Speed
Rail Authority (CHSRA) passenger projects. These proposed projects would require
extensive rail improvements through the GTA. The CHSRA is a high-speed rail line
that will connect San Diego and Los Angeles in the south with San Francisco and
Sacramento in the north, via the Central Valley. The stop nearest the GTA is proposed
in Bakersfield. The portion of the rail line crossing the GTA is proposed to be a mix
of at-grade, aerial, and tunnel segments. The Bakersfield-to-Palmdale segment of the
CHRSA is now undergoing environmental review; a Notice of Preparation of a Project-
May 2010
The Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads share
tracks in the GTA. The line, depicted in Figure 4-5, Railroads and Airports Map, roughly
parallels SR-58 and provides a vital freight corridor through the GTA and the city with
over 65 trains per day. The rail corridor is known for congestion due to portions of
the line having only a single track, which requires that trains divert to sidings when
other trains pass. While no passenger rail services currently operate in the GTA, a bus
connection to the Bakersfield rail station is available via Amtrak Thruway bus services.
4-7
FIGURE 4-3 Kern County Bicycle
Facilities Plan - Tehachapi Area
Level Environment Impact Report/Statement was issued in August 2009 (SCH No.
2009082062) for the project.
In addition to rail services, the GTA is served by two airports (shown on Figure 4-5):
Tehachapi Municipal Airport operated by the City of Tehachapi, and Mountain Valley
Airport, a private airport in the unincorporated GTA. Tehachapi Municipal Airport
is a public-use airport. It is not currently served by any commercial flights. There
are also two military airbases that may affect the GTA: Edwards Air Force Base and
China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. Aircraft from these bases fly within restricted
airspace known as the Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex.
Issues
4.3
•
The relatively small local population indicates that passenger rail and commercial
aircraft services are not likely to be provided in the area in the foreseeable future.
•
Accommodating growth and development proposals while maintaining
compatibility with current and future passenger, freight and potential high speed
rail.
Circulation Element goals, Policies,
And Implementation Measures
Based on the existing conditions, and the identified planning issues and assumptions
outlined above, along with community outreach, the following circulation goals and
policies have been identified for the GTA. The goals, policies, and implementation
measures of the Kern County General Plan are also hereby incorporated by reference.
When discrepancies exist between the General Plan and the GTASP, the more restrictive
Goals
GOAL CIR.1 Provide a safe and efficient circulation system that serves local
needs and meets forecast demands of residents and visitors, while
reducing the potential for traffic congestion.
May 2010
4.3.1General Circulation and Roadways
4-9
FIGURE 4-4
Transit Map
FIGURE 4-5
Railroads and
Airports Map
GOAL CIR.2
Maintain a Level of Service (LOS) C or better on roadways within
the identified Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Area within the
GTA, and LOS D for all areas outside of the TIF area.
GOAL CIR.3Reduce congestion in all established community areas and main
points of access into such areas.
GOAL CIR.4Upgrade road circulation in and around Tehachapi.
GOAL CIR.5Reduce the travel time and congestion between Stallion
Springs and Bear Valley Springs areas to San Joaquin Valley
transportation routes.
GOAL CIR.6Upgrade emergency access throughout the GTA.
Policies
Policy CIR.1
All County roadways and right-of-ways shall be constructed to
Kern County Development Standards. However, arterial and/or
collector roads may deviate from section and mid-section lines
as necessary, and as deemed appropriate by the Kern County
Roads Department, to accommodate topographic constraints
and preservation of environmental features.
Policy CIR.2Encourage the implementation of carpool, vanpool, and other
programs to reduce traffic congestion.
Policy CIR.3Encourage strategic-growth development patterns that support
mobility choices, reduced trip lengths (vehicle miles traveled),
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Maintain a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C on all circulation
system segments within the identified Traffic Impact Fee Area.
Policy CIR.5Require that all new public and private roads within the
boundaries of the GTA be improved to Type A Standards,
unless the Kern County Roads Department determines that
Type B Standards would be sufficient to accommodate the use
of the new road. The improvement shall begin at the project site
and shall connect the project to the nearest County-maintained
road.
May 2010
Policy CIR.4
4-12
Policy CIR.6
All new development along Highway 202 shall minimize new
points of ingress and egress per the standards established by
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Policy CIR.7
The County shall discourage new development that would
substantially impact traffic on Highway 202 unless the project
would implement sufficient mitigation or construct appropriate improvements to the highway, as determined by the Kern
County Roads Department, to adequately mitigate potential
impacts.
Policy CIR.8 Kern County and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) should evaluate feasibility of widening State Route
202 to four lanes and extending it through Cummings Valley to provide better access.
Policy CIR.9
Support City of Tehachapi to provide a new interchange at
Highway 58 and Dennison Road.
Implementation 1 All new discretionary development proposals shall consult
with the Kern County Roads Department to determine the
need for a Traffic Impact Analysis. Any required analysis shall
identify the appropriate circulation/street improvements to
be implemented by the project to maintain appropriate LOS
standard on facilities serving the project and surrounding area.
Policies CIR.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Implementation 3 The County shall not support any request to vacate any
public expressway, arterial, or collector highway right-of-way
or portion thereof without amendment to this plan. Policies
CIR.1, 4, 6
Implementation 4 All street improvement plans shall be reviewed by the Roads
Department for compliance with applicable County street
design standards, including paving requirements. All new public
and private roads within the boundaries of the GTA shall be
improved to Type A Standards, unless the Kern County Roads
Department determines that Type B Standards are sufficient to
May 2010
Implementation 2 All adopted Specific Plan Lines (Official Plan Lines) existing on
the effective date of the GTASP shall be protected for purposes
of future roadway development. Policy 1
4-13
accommodate the use of the new road. The improvement shall
begin at the project site and shall connect the project to the
nearest County-maintained road. Policies CIR.1, 4, 5
Implementation 5 The County shall work closely with the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Caltrans to
ensure that any future CCI expansion plans do not adversely
impact existing traffic conditions on SR-202 and other GTA
roadways. Policies CIR.1, 5, 6
Implementation 6 All new development proposals for industrial, commercial and
residential uses shall utilize project designs which incorporate
internal pedestrian and bike path connections, mixed-uses,
or other similar strategic growth design components. Policies
CIR.2, 3
Implementation 7 All new development projects within the identified
Transportation Impact Fee area shall be subject to the
collection of impacts fees as stipulated by the Tehachapi Region
and Tehachapi Region Core Area Transportation Impact Fee
Programs. Development proposals outside of the TIF area shall
be subject to proportionate share impact fees, as determined by
the County. Policies CIR.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Implementation 8 The County shall explore the possibility of expanding or
reducing in size the Tehachapi Region and/or Tehachapi
Region Core Area Transportation Impact Fee zones, as deemed
appropriate. Policies CIR.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
4.3.2
Trails and Bicycle/Equestrian/Pedestrian Networks
Goals
GOAL CIR.7Provide a useful, enjoyable, safe, and efficient regional trail system
for hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians that links communities,
recreational areas, public lands, and activity centers
May 2010
Implementation 9 The County shall explore the possibility of establishing a
Specific Plan Line for the State Route 202 extension through
Cummings Valley between the State Prison and into the Stallion
Springs area. Policies CIR.6, 7, 8
4-14
Policies
Policy CIR.10
Promote the creation and/or expansion of non-vehicular
circulation systems (bikeways, walkways, equestrian trials,
etc.) that create linkages within the GTA and encourage new
development to include provisions for such facilities.
Policy CIR.11 Encourage Street network connectivity and “complete streets”
designed to accommodate multiple transportation modes such
as, but not limited to those routes identified in the Kern County
Bicycle Facilities Plan as identified in Figure 4-3.
Policy CIR.13
Focus efforts to create bicycle lanes and trails near schools and
other recreational and public facilities (e.g., community centers
and parks) to increase safety for children.
Policy CIR.14
Continue to pursue the creation of a multi-use trail alignment
around the GTA, and work with the Kern County Roads
Department and Caltrans to acquire funding for such a project.
Policy CIR.15
Consider co-locating trails along utility easements, particularly
when the utility runs un-derground or the easements are no
longer needed for the identified use.
Policy CIR.16
Locate equestrian and pedestrian trails along, but separated
from, roads and highways, where feasible, to satisfy nonvehicular circulation needs and enhance the safety and
attractiveness of the roadways. Maximum flexibility is achieved
for acquiring land for trails when they are located adjacent to
roadways within rights-of-way or in setbacks. Link trails not
located along roadways to trails or walkways along roadways
to form a comprehensive circulation system.
May 2010
Policy CIR.12 Encourage the U.S. Forest Service to work with local property
owners to identify locations for new trails and establish
trailheads that connect existing or proposed public use trails.
Also work with other agencies and organizations to pursue
funding to support maintenance and creation of recreational
trails. Negotiations to establish trailheads shall consider private
property rights, security, and privacy in considering new public
access easements to public lands.
4-15
Implementation 10 The following proposed bicycle routes (See Figure 4-3) have
been identified as part of the Kern County Bicycle Facilities
Plan adopted by Kern COG.
North-South Routes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
East-West Routes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tucker Rd. from Highline Rd. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Summit Rd. from Highline Rd. to Valley Blvd.
Curry St. from Valley Blvd. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Mt. View Ave. from Valley Blvd. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Mill St. from Valley Blvd. to Capital Hills Dr.
Robinson St. from C St. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Snyder Ave. from Anita Dr. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Dennison Rd. from Highline Rd. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Stueber Rd. from Highline Rd. to Tehachapi Blvd.
Tehachapi-Willow Springs Rd. from Highline Rd. to
Tehachapi Blvd.
Highline Rd. from Tucker Rd. to Tehachapi-Willow Springs
Rd..
Cherry Ln. from Tucker Rd. to Brentwood St.
Valley Blvd. from Tucker Rd. to Summit Rd.
D St. from Mt. View Rd. to Mill Street.
C St. from Robinson St. to Snyder St.
Tehachapi Blvd. from Tucker Rd. to Tehachapi-Willow
Springs Rd.
Red Apple Ave. from Westwind Blvd. to Tucker Rd.
Proposed development projects requiring discretionary
action adjacent to identified bicycle routes shall be required
to implement street improvement or reserve right-of-way as
determined by the Kern County Roads Department for the
purpose of implementing the Kern County Bicycle Facilities
Plan. Policies CIR.10, 11, 13
Implementation 11 Provide a trail system offering both short and long hikes/rides
and serving the needs of both beginning and advanced hikers,
mountain bicyclers, and horseback riders. Policies CIR.10, 12,
14, 15, 16
Implementation 12 Separate trails from automobile traffic where possible to provide
safe conditions for riders and walkers. Design trail entrances
and trailheads that are accessible to the public with adequate
parking. Design trails to be flexible and site specific to minimize
impacts on adjacent property and fragile and sensitive habitats.
Policies CIR.10, 12, 14, 15, 16
May 2010
4-16
Implementation 13 The County shall support efforts to identify areas where trails
pass through private land, and shall support negotiations with
landowners to either establish public easements or re-route
trails through public land. Policy CIR.12
Implementation 14 All new development proposals for residential subdivisions and
commercial centers shall provide internal pedestrian paths,
bicycle lanes and storage facilities that address local needs and
consider regional connections. Policies CIR.11, 13
Implementation 15 The County will prepare a comprehensive GTA “Trails, Parks,
and Recreation Master Plan” based on the input of community
members, public agencies, and other organizations. The Plan
shall identify the current and proposed trail system (including
parks and recreational facilities) and shall identify the preferred
alignment for new trails and connections between existing
trails in the GTA. The Plan should, at a minimum, include the
following components:
a. A detailed description and map of existing trails, parks,
and recreation facilities in the GTA.
b. Provide a detailed description and map of proposed or
potential locations for new trails, parks, and recreation
facilities in the GTA.
c. Provide minimum standards (size, width, construction
standards, materials, amenities, signage, and parking) for
the various types of trails, parks, and recreation facilities
that could be constructed.
d. Identification of potential funding sources and mechanisms
for maintenance and operation of trails, parks, and
recreation facilities. Policies CIR.10, 12, 14, 15 and 16
Transit Services
Goals
GOAL CIR.8 Provide for increased transit services to allow residents of the
GTA access to outlying communities such as Bakersfield, Mojave
and Lancaster.
Policies
May 2010
4.3.3
4-17
Policy CIR.17
The County shall encourage transit purveyors to increase
the frequency of services between the GTA and the adjacent
communities such as Bakersfield, Mojave and Lancaster such
services as funding and ridership demand allows.
Implementation 16Encourage increased transit services between the GTA access
and adjacent communities such as Bakersfield, Mojave and
Lancaster. Policy CIR.17
4.3.4Rail Services and Aircraft Operations
Goals
GOAL CIR.9 Plan for land uses that are compatible with public airport and
military overflight areas, including the R-2508 Complex, and
mitigate encroachment issues.
GOAL CIR.10Encourage the future incorporation of a passenger rail
connection and commercial aircraft services in the GTA so that
residents can utilize services.
GOAL CIR.11Promote land use compatibility for new uses adjacent to high
speed rail lines.
Policies
Policy CIR.19
To the extent legally allowable, prevent encroachment on
military overflight areas, including the R-2508 Complex, from
incompatible, unmitigated land uses.
Policy CIR.20Encourage public awareness to property owners in proximity
to public airports and military overflight areas, including the
R-2508 Complex, on the potential impacts from such operations.
Policy CIR.21
May 2010
The County shall encourage purveyors of transit services
between the GTA and adjacent communities such as Bakersfield,
Policy CIR.18Review land use designations and zoning near public and
private airports for compatibility and prevent encroachment
into runway protection zones.
4-18
Mojave and Lancaster to increase the frequency of such services
as funding allows by those providers.
Policy CIR.22 Support the development of high speed rail where consistent
with existing land uses throughout the GTA.
Implementation 17Review for consistency discretionary land use development
applications within airport influence areas (as shown in the
ALUCP) and military overflight areas, including the R-2508
Complex. Policies CIR.18, 19, 20
Implementation 18 Coordinate and cooperate with airport operators, the County
Department of Airports, the California Department of
Transportation Division of Aeronautics, affected cities, Edwards
Air Force Base, NAWS China Lake, and the Department of
Defense on the ALUCP and review of land use applications,
public education, and encroachment issues. Policy CIR.19
Implementation 19 Pursue grants and funding from appropriate agencies for
updates and maintenance of the ALUCP and the study of
encroachment issues. Policy CIR.19, 20
Implementation 20 Pursue funding for electronic, GIS-based maps for the ALUCP.
Provide the ALUCP plan on the County website to facilitate
access to the real estate community, airport operators and
pilots, consultants and property owners. Policy CIR.18
Implementation 22Encourage future incorporation of a passenger rail connection
and commercial aircraft services in the GTA so that residents
can utilize services. Policy CIR.21
Implementation 23 Upon formal identification of a specific high speed rail route
by the California High Speed Rail Authority, the County shall
adopt a Specific Plan Line illustrating the location of a high
speed rail line. Policy CIR.22
May 2010
Implementation 21 Utilize Avigation Easements to increase buyer awareness of
impacts from proximity to airports and military bases. Policy
CIR.20
4-19
Chapter 5
safet y
5.1Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Safety Element is to protect the Greater Tehachapi Area from risks
associated with effects of:
•
Seismic Hazards (Map Code 2.1) – Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones and other
recently active fault zones.
•
Landslides (Map Code 2.2) – Areas of down-slope ground movement identified in
the Kern County Seismic Hazard Atlas and other geotechnical analyses.
•
Shallow Groundwater (Map Code 2.3) – Groundwater within 15 feet of the land
surface, as delineated in the Kern County Seismic Hazard Atlas (also called High
Water Areas).
•
Steep Slopes (Map Codes 2.4) – Land with an average slope of 30 percent or
steeper.
•
Flood Hazard (Map Code 2.5) – Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A), as
identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and supplemented by floodplain delineating maps
that have been approved by the Kern County Engineering and Survey Services
Department.
•
Wildland Fire Hazard (Map Code 2.6) – High fire risk areas adjacent to wildlands
and National Forest lands.
Kern County has developed the Kern County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP)
to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards
in the County. The MHMP lays out a countywide strategy to enable the County to
become less vulnerable to future disasters. As a part of this strategy, the Tehachapi
Mountain Community Response Plan (TMCRP) establishes responsibilities and
coordinates response to major emergencies or disasters that occur in or impact the GTA.
The TMCRPs purpose is to augment the Kern County Emergency Plan. It provides a
guideline of operations assuming that the out-of-area emergency personnel may not be
able to reach sections of the Tehachapi Mountain area for the first few hours or days
following a disaster. The MHMP describes the Incident Command System and lists
potential shelter locations and casualty staging areas.
May 2010
CHAPTER 5 Safety Element
The Safety Element contains a discussion of the existing safety concerns within the
GTA and the policies and implementation measures, if necessary, to mitigate any
adverse safety concerns. The identified safety concerns provide direction for developing
goals and policies to protect the GTA from adverse safety impacts through subsequent
development implementation within the Plan. This Element also provides mapping of
all known safety issues associated with the GTA. Potential safety issues include seismic
hazards, landslides, shallow groundwater, steep slopes, flood hazards, and wildland fires.
5-2
The GTA contains multiple environmental hazards which will need to be avoided or
mitigated as continuing development occurs. These multiple hazards exist due to the
size of the GTA, the topography of the GTA, climatic conditions, and the complexity
of geologic and hydrologic conditions present. The environmental hazards within
the GTA are generally known but will need to be more precisely defined as individual
development projects are proposed and site-specific analyses are prepared.
Generally, the GTA is at varying degrees of risk from earthquakes, wildfires, landslides,
severe weather (wind, storms, fog, extreme temperatures both hot and cold), flooding,
and dam failure comparable to other similarly rural areas; however, certain areas in
the GTA have increased risk potential due to mountainous characteristics and limited
access and infrastructure.
The GTA is bordered by two major The GTA is bordered by two major
active faults, the White Wolf active faults, the White Wolf Fault
Fault on the western boundary
on the western boundary and the
and the Garlock Fault just beyond
Garlock Fault just beyond the
the eastern boundary. There are
eastern boundary.
numerous smaller active and
inactive faults throughout the GTA, including: the Phillips Ranch Fault, the Tehachapi
Creek Fault, the Cummings Valley Fault, and the Bear Mountain Fault. The GTA is
also in close proximity to San Andreas Fault system, which is located approximately
40 miles west of downtown Tehachapi. Figure 5-1, Seismic Hazards, shows these faults
in proximity to the GTA. Areas within fault zones are designated with the overlay
Map Code 2.1 (Seismic Hazard). Earthquake or seismic hazards include strong ground
shaking, surface rupture due to faulting, soil deformation, and lateral spreading due
to soil liquefaction and differential settlement of soils. Strong earthquakes can cause
secondary hazards such as landslides and fires from ruptured utility lines. Earthquakes
can cause significant damage to the built environment, damaging building structures
and contents, collapsing buildings and bridges, and rupturing roads and lifelines. All of
these seismic hazards could occur in the event of a major earthquake in the GTA or in
the surrounding region.
There are few mapped landslides in the GTA; areas of known landslide hazards are
mapped on Figure 5-2, Landslide Areas and Steep Slopes. These areas are designated
with the overlay Map Code 2.2 (Landslide Hazard). Most mapped landslides are located
on the eastern slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains on the western edge of the GTA
May 2010
5.2.1Seismic Hazards, Landslides, Steep Slopes, and Liquefaction
5-3
FIGURE 5-1
Seismic Hazards
FIGURE 5-2
Landslide Areas and Steep Slopes
between Bear Valley and Stallion Springs. Historic landslides are often not found until
site-specific geotechnical analyses are completed.
Steep slopes, defined as slopes of 30 percent grade or more, are found throughout the
GTA. These areas are depicted on Figure 5-2. These areas are designated with the
overlay Map Code 2.4 (Steep Slope 30% or Greater).
Areas considered to be at high risk of liquefaction due to soil types and geology are
focused in the Tehachapi, Cummings, and Bear Valleys. These areas are mapped on
Figure 5-3, Liquefaction Risk. These areas are designated with the overlay Map Code
2.7 (Liquefaction Risk Areas).
Issues
•
The GTA is part of a seismically-sensitive region and is therefore subject to
hazards such as landslides/rockslides, land subsidence, liquefaction, and erosion.
•
The potential for earthquake damage within the plan area is unknown beyond
the fact that it is in an area of high earthquake activity like much of California,
which could result in damage to structures and infrastructure.
•
Emergency access to and from the region and within the plan area is a concern
given the limited means of ingress and available space to accommodate future
expansion of the roadway network. Additional development will need to plan for
and identify additional access points that can be utilized in case of an emergency.
5.2.2 Flood Hazards, Shallow Groundwater, and Dam Failure
The groundwater system beneath the GTA consists of three separate groundwater
basins: the Brite, Cummings, and Tehachapi Valley basins. Groundwater quality
within the GTA is generally high. Depth to groundwater in the Tehachapi Valley Basin
ranges between approximately 220 and 300 feet. There are several facilities within
the GTA that currently have or at some time in the past had the potential to release
hazardous material or hazardous waste that could impact the groundwater within the
GTA. However, because of the thick accumulation of clays and silty clays overlying the
May 2010
Flooding may occur in low lying areas near lakes, streams, rivers or channels in the
GTA. Flooding is most likely to occur during or after heavy precipitation, particularly
prolonged periods of rain. There are several 100-year flood zones within the boundaries
of the GTA (see Figure 5-4, Flood Zones). The largest is east of the city of Tehachapi,
between SR-58 and Tehachapi Boulevard and consists of approximately 740 acres.
A majority of these flood zones consist of vacant, undeveloped land; therefore, flood
constrol installations are not present at a majority of the sites where flow has been
calculated. Areas within these flood zones are designated with the overlay Map Code 2.5
(Flood Hazards). Future development will require consideration of calculated flows and
design of adequate flood control devices.
5-6
FIGURE 5-3
Liquefaction Risk
FIGURE 5-4
Flood Zones
aquifer, it is unlikely that the currently known releases at these facilities will impact
area groundwater basins. In general, the aquifer beneath the GTA is relatively coarse
grained which would suggest higher groundwater flow velocities that in the aquifer
consisted of finer grained sediments, assuming similar gradients.
There are three dams in the GTA that are large enough to fall within the jurisdiction
of the State of California: Brite Valley Dam (J.C. Jacobsen Dam), Antelope Dam, and
Blackburn Dam (see Figure 5-5, Dams and Inundation Areas Map). All three are owned
by the Tehachapi Cummings Valley Water District. Table 5-1, GTA Dams, provides
additional detail on the dams located within the GTA.
TABLE 5-1GTA Dams
Name
Year
Built
Type
Height
Storage
Capacity
Reservoir
Area
Drainage
Area
Antelope Dam
1987
Earthen
57 ft.
764 AF
25 Ac
4.35 sq. mi.
Blackburn Dam
1991
Earthen
48 ft.
625 AF
28 Ac
6.00 sq. mi.
Brite Valley Dam
(J.C. Jacobsen Dam)
1973
Earthen
56 ft.
1,820 AF
76 Ac
1.30 sq. mi.
Source: California Department of Water Resources, California Data Exchange Center
Issues
•
The Antelope Dam and the Blackburn Dam are relatively small and size and do
not require inundation mapping. However, the Brite Valley Dam is included in
the Kern County inundation mapping program and in the event of the failure of
the Brite Valley Dam, stored water would flow downstream (north) across SR-202
and then flow west and south into the Cummings Valley. Any future development
within inundation areas should be considered for compatibility.
•
Certain areas of the GTA will need to be protected from potential flooding and
groundwater contamination.
The GTA is at risk of fire hazards because of local weather conditions (particularly
high winds); topographic elevation changes; the presence of wildland-urban interface
zones; isolation from a rapid wildland fire response (including fire engines and other
fire suppression resources outside of the GTA due to the steep grades found on SR-58);
the amount of fuel loading vegetation with high levels of tree mortality; limited access
for emergency vehicles in hillside areas; and limited access to some communities. The
General Plan identifies Bear Valley Springs and Stallion Springs as areas that are in
particular need of improved emergency access.
May 2010
5.2.3 Wildland Fire Hazard
5-9
FIGURE 5-5
Dams and Inundation Areas Map
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has prepared
maps depicting fire hazards within the GTA, as shown in Figure 5-6, Fire Hazard
Severity Zones. CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program maps Fire Hazard
Severity Zones based on data and models that incorporate development patterns,
potential fuels over a 30 to 50 year time horizon, expected fire behavior, and expected
burn probabilities to quantify the nature and likelihood of vegetation fire exposure
to new construction. These areas are designated with the overlay Map Code 2.6 (Fire
Hazard). In non-urban areas, the Fire Hazard Severity Zones are described as follows:
•
“Moderate” Fire Hazard Severity Zones – areas of typically low fire frequency
and relatively modest fire behavior. Contributing factors may include a relatively
short active fire season and/or low frequency of severe fire weather conditions;
modest slope; low incidence of past large and damaging fires; dominant climax
fuel types supporting modest surface fire regimes with respect to fire intensity
and minimal areas supporting crown fire and associated firebrand development
and reception; nearby or interspersed areas supporting non-wildland fuels
(agriculture lands, water, rock/barren) may also be present.
•
“High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones – areas with medium to high hazard fire
behavior and roughly average burn probabilities. Typically characterized by
climax fuels from surface strata only with flat to steep slopes in conjunction with
relatively rare fire occurrence influenced by short fire seasons and/or significant
moderation of fire weather conditions (e.g., marine influence on fuel moistures),
or lesser hazard fuels types subject to more prevalent burn frequencies. Nearby
forested areas supporting crown fire are isolated or non-existent. Slopes vary from
flat to steep, depending on fuel hazards and burn probabilities.
•
“Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zones – areas supporting high to extreme
fire behavior resulting from climax fuels typified by well-developed surface fuel
profiles (e.g., mature chaparral) or forested systems where crown fire is likely.
Additional site elements include steep and mixed topography and climate/fire
weather patterns that include seasonal extreme weather conditions of strong
winds and dry fuel moistures. Burn frequency is typically high, and should be
evidenced by numerous historical large fires in the area. Firebrands from both
short- and long-range sources are often abundant.
•
The GTA is very susceptible to wildland fires, particularly at the wildland/urban
interface at the edges of the Cummings, Brite, and Tehachapi Valleys, parts of
which are classed as Very High fire threat.
•
The local desire to preserve the rural character of the GTA may result in property
owners resisting recommended fire protection strategies such as fuel breaks,
prescribed burns, and the creation of improved or additional access points.
•
Fire safety is a significant issue within the GTA due to the rural, dispersed nature
of development, the rugged topography of much of the GTA, the accessibility of
emergency vehicles due to limited points of access and narrow roads, and climatic
(particularly wind) conditions. The GTA has a relatively high risk for a damaging
wildfire for the following reasons:
May 2010
Issues
5-11
FIGURE 5-6
Fire Hazard
Severity Zones
•
The GTA experiences windy weather and has significant topographic elevation
changes.
•
Tehachapi is isolated from a rapid wildland fire response from fire protection
services outside the area due to steep grades on SR-58.
•
Fuel loading or vegetation is extremely high with a large number of acres
experiencing significant tree mortality.
•
This fuel loading could feed a fire that burns into one or more communities taxing
fire suppression resources beyond their capabilities.
•
Many roads provide no through connections, making evacuation difficult while
fire protection services attempt to access certain areas with heavy firefighting
equipment, or fires or other hazards block access to roads.
5.3SAFETY Element GOALS, POLICIES, AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Based on the existing conditions and identified planning issues and assumptions
outlined above, along with community outreach efforts, the following safety policies
and implementation measures have been identified for the GTA. The goals, policies,
and implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan are also hereby
incorporated by reference. When discrepancies exist between the General Plan and
the GTASP, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. The Kern County Planning
Director shall determine which policy is more restrictive should conflicts arise.
5.3.1 General Safety
Goals
GOAL SAF.2
Minimize injuries and loss of life and reduce property damage.
GOAL SAF.3Assist in the allocation of public resources in the GTA to develop
information regarding geologic, fire, and flood safety hazards
and to develop a systematic approach toward the protection of
public health, safety, and welfare from such hazards.
May 2010
GOAL SAF.1 Reduce economic and social disruption that may result from
earthquakes, fire, flooding, and other geologic hazards by
assuring vital emergency public services and functions are
available to service the project area.
5-13
GOAL SAF.4
Create an awareness of the residents in the GTA through the
dissemination of information about geologic, fire, and flood
safety hazards.
GOAL SAF.5Ensure the availability and effective response of emergency
services following a catastrophic event.
GOAL SAF.6Ensure that adequate emergency services and facilities are
available to the residents of the GTA through the coordination of
planning and development of emergency facilities and services.
Policies
Policy SAF.1
Continue the County’s program of identifying, mapping, and
evaluating various geologic, fire and flood safety hazard areas
throughout the GTA.
Policy SAF.3
The County shall continue to encourage public support of
local, State, and federal research programs on geologic, fire,
flood hazards, valley fever, plague, and other studies so that
acceptable risk may be continually reevaluated.
Policy SAF.4
The County shall encourage extra precautions be taken for the
design of significant lifeline installations, such as highways,
utilities, and petrochemical pipelines.
Policy SAF.5
The adopted Kern County, California Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan is incorporated by reference. This multi-jurisdictional
plan, approved in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000, provides long-term planning to reduce the impacts of
future disasters.
Implementation 1 The County shall review all development proposals within
identified hazard areas (geologic, fire, and flood) for
compatibility and shall identify measures necessary to reduce
potential impacts susceptible to such hazards. Policies 1, 2
May 2010
Policy SAF.2Encourage the conservation of known hazardous areas as open
space uses, such as agriculture, wildlife habitat, and limited
recreation.
5-14
Implementation 2 The County shall require detailed site studies for ground shaking
characteristics, liquefaction potential, dam failure inundation,
flooding potential, and fault rupture potential as background
to the design process in association with the discretionary
development of sites which may be in potential hazardous
areas. Policies 1, 2, 3
Implementation 3 The adopted multi-jurisdictional Kern County, California
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, as approved by FEMA, shall be
used as a source document for preparation of environmental
documents pursuant to CEQA, evaluation of project proposals,
formulation of potential mitigation, and identification of
specific actions that could, if implemented, mitigate impacts
from future disasters and other threats to public safety. Policies
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
5.3.2 Seismic Hazards, Landslides, Steep Slopes, and Liquefaction
Goals
GOAL SAF.7 Minimize possible damage to structures and loss of life that
could result from geological hazards, landslides and steep slopes.
Policy SAF.6
Consider the presence of geologic hazard areas in development
regulations and land use decisions. Development standards
shall be more stringent in geologically hazardous areas than in
areas where constraints are absent.
Policy SAF.7
Within areas designated as or adjacent to Map Code 2.1
(Seismic Hazard), and where site location or conditions indicate
the need, development proposals shall include a geotechnical
assessment of the site’s susceptibility to liquefaction, strong
ground shaking, and earthquake-related landslides.
Policy SAF.8
Site construction standards shall incorporate practices and
techniques to reduce potential damage from seismic events.
New residential uses in fault zones should be limited to singlefamily housing units.
May 2010
Policies
5-15
Policy SAF.9
The County shall require development for human occupancy to
be placed in a location away from an active earthquake fault in
order to minimize safety concerns.
Policy SAF.10
Safety measures required by the Kern County Building Code and
the Kern County Seismic Safety Element during construction
of new buildings are incorporated into this Specific Plan by
reference.
Policy SAF.11Encourage residential property owners to implement seismic
safety improvements in older buildings, such as anchoring
buildings to foundations, bolting water heaters to walls, and
performing other preventative measures.
Policy SAF.12
Participate in state-sponsored earthquake preparedness
programs, and assemble and distribute educational information
that explains the risks of earthquakes and landslides. Assemble
and distribute information concerning emergency management
procedures relating to high magnitude, low frequency geologic
events such as earthquakes.
Policy SAF.13Reduce exposure of property and people to landslide risk
through a combination of geotechnical investigations,
engineering practice, and enforcement of applicable Kern
County ordinances.
Policy SAF.15Ensure that development in areas designated 2.4 (Steep Slopes)
within the GTASP complies with steep slope requirements
in Kern County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 19.88 (Hillside
Development).
Policy SAF.16Regardless of percentage of slope, development on hillsides
shall be sited in the least obtrusive fashion, thereby minimizing
the extent of topographic alteration required and reducing soil
erosion while maintaining soil stability.
May 2010
Policy SAF.14Residential density shall be limited in areas designated 2.4
(Steep Slopes) within the GTASP subject to confirmation by the
property owner of the existence of steep slopes as defined herein.
To the extent practical within these locations, development
should be clustered in the more level portions of a property,
away from steep slope areas, or follow recommendations
identified in geotechnical studies.
5-16
Policy SAF.17Ensure effective slope stability, wastewater drainage, and
sewage treatments in areas with steep slopes are adequate for
development.
Implementation 1 All new development proposals in areas designated 2.1 (Seismic
Hazards) or 2.4 (Steep Slope) by the GTASP shall be reviewed
to consider the design and intensity of the proposed use in
relation to potential seismic risk. Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14,
15
Implementation 2 All new discretionary development proposals located in areas
designated 2.1 (Seismic Hazards), 2.2 (Landslides), or 2.4
(Steep Slopes) or areas designated as a “General Plan Physical
Constraints Seismic Hazard” by Figure 5-1, shall be accompanied
by a geotechnical report which includes recommendations to
mitigate the potential effects of the seismic hazard, steep slope
or potential for landslide. Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17
Implementation 3 All development proposals shall be required to comply with all
County Codes or more restrictive measures identified during
review of any potential development proposal to ensure
seismically resistant structures. Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12
Implementation 4 The County shall continue to participate in state-sponsored
earthquake preparedness programs and shall continue to inform
residents and business owners about seismic risks in the GTA
and mitigation do to help minimize impacts from earthquakes.
Policies SAF.7, 12
Implementation 6Reflect the location of active faults in zoning and subdivision
approvals, through low-density zoning designations, and
through locations of lot lines and public ways to allow adequate
flexibility in placement of buildings, such that active fault
traces can be avoided. Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
May 2010
Implementation 5 Known geologic hazards within the area of a proposed
subdivision shall be referenced on the final subdivision map.
Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
5-17
Implementation 7 The County shall encourage property owners to implement
seismic safety improvements in older buildings. These measures
may include anchoring buildings to foundations and bolting
water heaters to walls. Policy SAF.11
Implementation 8 All development proposals in areas with steep slopes (greater
than 30 percent) will be reviewed for conformity with Chapter
19.88 (Hillside Development Ordinance) of the Kern County
Zoning Ordinance. Policies SAF.13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Implementation 9 When processing any request for a residential zone change
or residential tract map, the County shall require the use of
the Cluster (CL) Combining District to permit flexible design
and siting standards as a means of achieving efficient and
sustainable construction and avoidance of environmental
hazard constraints. Policies SAF.13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Implementation 10Route major lifeline components such as highways, utilities,
petroleum or chemical pipelines around areas of high
groundwater whenever possible. Where they must cross an area
of high groundwater, plans, and permits shall require design
features to accommodate extensive ground rupture without
prolonged disruption of an essential service or threat to health
and safety. Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 13
Implementation 11Require that plans and permits for installation of major lifeline
components such as highways, utilities, petroleum or chemical
pipelines to incorporate design features to accommodate
potential fault movement in areas of active faults without
prolonged disruption of essential service or threat to health and
safety. Policies SAF.6, 7, 8, 13
5.3.3 Flood Hazard, Shallow Groundwater, and Dam Failure
GOAL SAF.8 Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan
May 2010
Minimize the potential for damage from floods by protecting and
restoring the natural water storage and conveyance functions of
flood-prone areas, giving preference wherever possible to nonstructural surface water management methods.
Goals
5-18
GOAL SAF.9Prevent loss of life, reduce personal injuries, reduce property
damage, and minimize economic loss resulting from flood hazard
and dam inundation conditions.
GOAL SAF.10Protect areas of shallow groundwater
contamination by surface uses.
from
potential
Policies
Policy SAF.18
Minimize the potential for damage from floods by protecting and
restoring the natural water storage and conveyance functions
of flood-prone areas, giving preference wherever possible to
non-structural surface water management methods.
Policy SAF.19
Prevent loss of life, reduce personal injuries, reduce property
damage, and minimize economic loss resulting from flood
hazard and dam inundation conditions.
Policy SAF.20
Design discretionary critical facilities located within the
potential inundation area for the Brite Valley Dam in order
to mitigate the effects of inundation on the facility; promote
orderly shutdown and evacuation (as appropriate); and prevent
on-site hazards from affecting building occupants and the
surrounding communities in the event of dam failure.
Implementation 13 All development proposals in areas designated 2.5 (Flood
Hazard) shall construct required drainage facilities as specified
by the Kern County Department of Engineering and Survey
Services. The facilities shall be constructed in accordance
with applicable Kern County standards and best management
practices to facilitate water conveyance and avoid or minimize
potential flood impacts. Policies SAF.18, 19
May 2010
Implementation 12 All development proposals in areas designated 2.5 (Flood
Hazard) shall be accompanied by a Flood Study prepared by a
certified engineer, if required by the Kern County Department
of Engineering and Survey Services. Any mitigation measures
identified by the study shall be incorporated into the project’s
design and engineering. Policies SAF.18, 19, 20
5-19
Implementation 14 Discretionary critical facilities within potential inundation
areas shall be designed to mitigate or prevent effects of
inundation. Policy SAF.20
Implementation 15 All development proposals in areas designated 2.3 (Shallow
Groundwater) shall be accompanied by Groundwater Study
prepared by a certified engineer, if required by the Kern
County Department of Engineering and Survey Services. Any
mitigation measures identified by the study shall be incorporated
into project design and engineering. Policies SAF.18, 19, 21
5.3.4 Wildland Fire Hazard
Goals
GOAL SAF.11Ensure that infrastructure (emergency water sources, road
access, address displays, etc.) are sufficient to protect residents
and structures against wildland fires.
GOAL SAF.12Ensure that new development does not create a burden on
adequate levels of fire service.
GOAL SAF.13Ensure that residential, commercial, and industrial structures
adhere to the appropriate Fire Code and incorporate fire resistant
building materials within the building design.
Policies
Policy SAF.22 Educate residents about wildfire risks and the steps needed to
mitigate those risks.
Policy SAF.24Encourage the use of defensible space principles (fuel
modification zones), including re-vegetation with less flammable
plants and trees and the use of limited irrigation.
Policy SAF.25Require that all new residential, commercial, and industrial
development provide an accessible supply of water for fire
suppression activity.
May 2010
Policy SAF.23 Require subdivisions to incorporate secondary or emergency
access where appropriate, unless the Kern County Fire
Department (KCFD) determines that adequate fire protection
can be provided with one access route.
5-20
Policy SAF.26
The discretionary development approval process shall be
coordinated with the KCFD to ensure that Fire Department
response services and project design features can adequately
protect the proposed project and serve the community.
Policy SAF.27
Support the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies in the
implementation of fuel reduction programs throughout the
GTA.
Policy SAF.28
Discourage specific plan amendments that would facilitate
the development of new residential subdivisions within areas
designated as 2.6 (Wildland Fire Hazard) unless appropriate
project-specific measures have been identified to reduce the
potential risk and impacts from wildland fires.
Implementation 16 All development proposals shall be reviewed by the Kern
County Fire Department (KCFD) to determine the need for fire
protection services. New development shall not be approved
unless adequate fire protection facilities and resources can be
provided. Policies SAF.22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Implementation 18 All development proposals shall be reviewed by the Kern
County Fire Department (KCFD) and the Kern County
Roads Department to ensure that adequate street widths
and clearance areas are being provided to accommodate fire
protection equipment and emergency vehicles. Policies SAF.23,
24, 25, 26
Implementation 19 All development proposals shall include an assessment of impacts
on public services and facilities, and identify recommendations
for mitigation of those impacts. Policies SAF.23, 24, 25, 26
May 2010
Implementation 17 All development proposals shall be reviewed by the Kern County
Fire Department (KCFD) to ensure that the design complies
with the adopted Fire Code and development standards of the
KCFD regarding access, fire flows, emergency vehicle access,
and fire protection facilities. This review may require special
building design materials and features for properties located
within the High Fire Hazard areas, as specified by the KCFD.
Policies SAF.23, 24, 25, 26
5-21
Implementation 20 All applications for a building permit, specific plan amendment,
zone change, land division, precise development plans, or
conditional use permit for property which is designated as Map
Code 2.6 (Wildland Fire Hazard) shall prepare a Fire Protection
Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Kern County Fire
Department. The Fire Protection Plan shall identify all
proposed protection measures to address fire concerns which
are beyond the scope of the existing regulations as found in the
Fire Code and Wildland Urban Interface Regulation Checklist.
The Fire Protection Plan shall be subject to revision based on
comments received by the Fire Department. Policies SAF.22,
28
Implementation 21 All structures constructed within any portion of the GTA that is
within the “Moderate,” “High,” or “Very High” fire hazard areas,
as shown in Figure 5-6 (Fire Hazard Severity Zones) shall adhere
to the requirements of the Kern County Fire Code and the most
current requirements of the Wildland Urban Interface Regulation
Checklist as maintained by the Kern County Fire Department’s Fire
Prevention Unit. Those standards shall include, but are not limited
to the following:
May 2010
Fire Department Access
•
Access roads and driveways up to 150 feet in length and
serving no more than two single family dwellings shall be
no less than 15 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
•
Access roads more than 150 feet in length or serving more
than two single family dwellings or commercial properties
shall be no less than 20 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical
clearance.
•
Provide an approved turnaround when a dead-end driveway
exceeds 150 feet.
•
Access roads and driveways shall be surfaced with aggregate
base or aggregate sub-base to a compacted minimum
thickness of 4 inches.
•
Access roads and driveways shall not have a grade of more
than 15 percent and shall be paved with asphalt or a similar
surface when the grade is more than 10 percent.
•
Access roads and driveways shall have no curve or turn with
less than a 20-foot turning radius.
•
Gate widths will equal or exceed the width of the access
roads and driveways, which they control.
5-22
•
The address numbers shall be posted and clearly visible
from the street prior to construction.
Fire Protection Water Supply
An approved fire hydrant shall be installed if the structure is within
600 feet of a recognized water distribution system. Otherwise, the
following water tank requirements apply.
May 2010
Water tanks cannot be shared by more than one property.
•
Structures up to 2,500 square feet of floor space shall have
a water tank with a capacity of 3,500 gallons. Structures
over 2,500 square feet of floor space shall have a water tank
with a capacity of 5,000 gallons.
•
Place water tanks between 75 and 200 feet of all inhabitable
structures with a floor area of more than 500 square feet.
•
Position tanks so that a 50,000 lb. fire engine can park
within 8 feet of the fire department connection. Access
roads to the tank shall be no less than 15 feet wide, with an
all weather surface.
•
The tank must have a 2 ½ inch valved male outlet with fire
hose threads (National Standard Thread) with an automatic
refill device and water level indicator. The bottom of the
threaded connection shall be between 6 and 12 inches above
grade.
•
A fire hydrant may be connected to the water tank by
an approved, engineered underground pipe system. The
underground pipe must be a minimum of 4 inches in
diameter. The system must be approved and inspected by
the Kern County Fire Department.
Defensible Space
•
Building proprietors will create and maintain adequate and
approved defensible space by modifying and/or removing
combustible vegetation adjacent to structures. Clearance
guidelines, outlined in, and mandated by, Section 4707
(Chapter 6 of the 2006 International Wildland Urban
Interface Code), stipulate that defensible space is free of
flammable and combustible vegetation and other materials
that would contribute to fire spreading from the wildlands
to the structure or from the structure to the wildlands.
•
Storage of firewood and combustible materials, including
construction materials storage sites, shall be located at
least 20 feet from structures. These collection sites cannot
be located beneath, or on, projections attached to main
structures, and must be at least 15 feet below tree crowns.
•
5-23
•
Defensible space guidelines are further specified, and can be
obtained by contacting the Kern County Fire Department.
Policies SAF.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Implementation 22 All roads shall be properly marked and all homes shall have
addresses that are prominently displayed. Policies SAF.23, 24,
25, 26
Implementation 23 Proposed discretionary actions shall be required to maintain
minimum weed abatement or vegetation clearing around and
within individual lots as specified by the Kern County Building
Code (Chapter 8.46), and identify during public review of
the project the means in which minimum weed abatement or
vegetation clearing will be maintained. Policy SAF.24
Implementation 24 The County shall maintain a high level of inter-jurisdictional
cooperation and coordination, including appropriate automatic
aid agreements with fire protection/ suppression agencies in the
City of Tehachapi and with the U.S. Forest Service and federal
Bureau of Land Management. Policy SAF.27
Implementation 25 The County shall not support specific plan amendment proposals
that would facilitate the development of new residential
subdivisions within areas designated as 2.6 (Wildland Fire
Hazard) unless appropriate project-specific measures have been
identified to reduce the potential risk from wildland fires. Policy
SAF.28
May 2010
5-24
Chapter 6
noise
The purpose of this Noise Element is to identify community noise sources, quantify
existing noise levels, and provide tools to prevent incompatibility between existing
and future noise sources and sensitive land uses. The identified topics provide direction
for developing objectives and policies to protect the GTA from adverse noise impacts
through subsequent implementation of the GTASP.
Noise is often defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. Many sounds are by-products
of desirable and necessary day-to-day activities. Unfortunately, some of these sounds
are not only undesirable but may also be detrimental to health. Noise in excessive levels
can affect our environment and our quality of life. Studies have shown that excessive
noise can have adverse physiological and psychological effects and some extreme levels
can cause pain and hearing loss.
Although sound is measurable, noise is subjective because it is dependent on the
listener’s reaction, the time of day, distance between source and receptor, and tonal
characteristics. The effects of sound on people range from annoyance and inconvenience
to temporary or permanent hearing loss. People are subjected to a multitude of sounds
at home or in the work place on a daily basis. The relationship between measurable
sound and human irritation is the key to understanding noise impact.
Noise standards are used to determine acceptable community noise levels, measured in
decibels (dB). The two most common noise standards are Community Noise Equivalent
Levels (CNEL) and Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). Both CNEL and Ldn noise levels are
used to identify community noise impacts within the Noise Element.
•
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) – A measure of the cumulative
noise exposure in the community, with greater weights applied to evening and
nighttime periods. For CNEL calculations, day is defined as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and
this period has a weighting factor of one; evening is 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and has a
weighting factor of three; and night is from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and has a weighting
factor of ten. Noises occurring at night are given a substantially heavier weight,
since for most people this is the time when noise is most disturbing.
•
Day-Night Average Sound Level, Ldn – The same as CNEL except that the evening
time period is not considered separately, but instead it is included as part of the
daytime period. Noise contours developed using CNEL and Ldn procedures will
normally agree within one dB(A), which is an insignificant difference. The Ldn is
a computational simplification of the CNEL.
The following land uses are considered to be noise-sensitive and require special
consideration in land use planning to reduce conflicts related to noise emissions:
May 2010
CHAPTER 6 Noise Element
Definitions
6-2
•
Residential areas
•
Schools
•
Convalescent and acute care hospitals
•
Parks and recreational areas
•
Churches
Table 6-1, Noise Level Standards for Sensitive Land Use Categories, describes the
maximum desired ambient noise level standards for the noise sensitive land use
categories described above.
TABLE 6-1Noise Level Standards for Sensitive Land Use Categories
Outdoor Activity Areas
65 dB Ldn or less
Indoor Living Spaces or Other Noise-Sensitive
Interior Spaces
45 dB Ldn or less
6.2.1 General Noise and Noise Sensitive Areas
The major noise sources within the GTA consist of vehicular traffic along SR-58 and
SR-202, other major roadways, railroad movements along the UP/BNSF rail line,
aircraft flight operations at Tehachapi Municipal Airport, Mountain Valley Airport,
Edwards Air Force Base, and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, Lehigh
Southwest Cement Company operations, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill, and wind
energy operations. These major noise sources are shown above on Figure 6-1, Major
Noise Sources.
All of the noise sensitive land uses mentioned above have been identified in the
boundaries of the GTASP.
May 2010
Residents of GTA may be exposed to excessive noise and/or ground vibration levels
adjacent to the identified GTA noise sources. Increased noise levels or more frequent
ground vibration events may occur with continued growth occurring in the area and
the concomitant increase in traffic volumes. Additionally, as new roads are built and/
or expanded, new noise contours or increased noise contour distances will form around
roadways and potentially expose more sensitive uses to excessive noise levels.
6-3
FIGURE 6-1
Major Noise Sources
Issues
•
Excessive noise can disrupt human activities and result in a health hazard.
•
Construction related noise may temporarily impact adjacent noise-sensitive land
uses and wildlife.
6.2.2Roadways
The major roadways within the GTA for which noise contours are identified are shown
in Table 6-2, Distance to Roadway Noise Contour Lines. This table shows the distance
from the centerline of the roadway to the indicated noise contour. As shown on Table
6-2, the 65 dB standard may be exceeded at noise-sensitive areas that are not properly
mitigated within varying distances to the road. As indicated above, noise-sensitive
uses adjacent to these roadway sources would include residential properties, schools,
convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches.
TABLE 6-2Distance to Roadway Noise Contour Lines
Roadway/Segment
Distance to CNEL/Ldn Contour
65 dB
60 dB
SR-58
331 feet
713 feet
SR-202
75 feet
190 feet
Comanche Point Road
110 feet
238 feet
Highline Road
102 feet
223 feet
Tehachapi Road
41 feet
89 feet
Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road
83 feet
179 feet
Woodford-Tehachapi Road
N/A
20 feet
Issues
•
Increasing traffic volumes on GTA roadways will result in expanded noise contours
which could affect existing sensitive uses which have not previously been exposed
to excessive noise levels.
Table 6-3, Distance to Railroad Noise Contour Lines, and Figure 6-2, Railroad Noise
Contours, shows the distance of the noise contours generated from railroad operations
from the railroad track centerline.
Noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the rail corridor include residential properties, schools,
convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches.
May 2010
6.2.3Rail Operations and Ground Vibration
6-5
TABLE 6-3Distance to Railroad Noise Contour Lines
Segment
West of Tehachapi Station
Distance to CNEL Contour
65 dB
60 dB
55 dB
960 feet
2,160 feet
4,840 feet
Tehachapi Station to Monolith
610 feet
1,190 feet
2,300 feet
Monolith to Cameron Canyon Road
660 feet
1,260 feet
2,400 feet
The only known vibration sources within the GTA are train movements and blasting
at the Lehigh Southwest Cement plant. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
guideline of 75 vibration dB (VdB) for occasional vibration events would be exceeded if
vibration-sensitive land uses (such residences, hotels, and hospitals) were located within
approximately 145 feet of the railroad. The FTA guideline of 78 VdB for occasional
events is exceeded at a distance of about 105 feet from the railroad for schools, offices,
and houses of worship and other institutions.
Issues
•
Noise-sensitive uses exist within close proximity to rail corridor lines. Efforts
should be made to ensure that future development of sensitive uses does not occur
within the known noise contours of existing rail operations.
6.2.4Airports and Aircraft Operations
The County’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) states that the maximum
CNEL considered normally acceptable for residential uses outside the influence area of
the airports covered by the ALUCP is 65 dB.
Mountain Valley Airport is a privately-owned public-use airport consisting of two
runways. This airport is located outside of the boundaries of the City of Tehachapi.
Typical hours of airport operations are between 7:00 a.m. and dusk. The Mountain
Valley Airport is used primarily by sailplanes and the aircraft used to tow them to their
release location. The airport is the base of operations for approximately 90 aircraft.
The noise contours for Mountain Valley Airport are shown on Figure 6-3, Mountain
Valley Airport Noise Contours.
Although not located in the GTA, regional military facilities utilize aircraft which fly
over portions the GTA. While the CNEL noise contours associated with these facilities
do not encroach upon the GTA, impacts may nonetheless result from military aircraft
May 2010
There are two airports within the GTA: the Tehachapi Municipal Airport and Mountain
Valley Airport. Each airport has a sufficient amount of activity to generate noise
contours. The Tehachapi Municipal Airport is a municipally-owned public-use airport
consisting of one runway.
6-6
FIGURE 6-2
Railroad Noise Contours
FIGURE 6-3
Mountain Valley Airport Noise Contours
that fly beyond the boundaries of the facilities at supersonic speeds and sometimes as
low as 200 feet above the ground. In order to minimize flight hazards to non-military
aircraft, the military aircraft fly within restricted airspace known as the Joint Service
Restricted R-2508 Complex. This Complex is considered an extension of the airspace
for regional military facilities. The eastern portion of the GTA lies within the R-2508
Complex. Flight operations in the R-2508 Complex Airspace occasionally result in
low level flying aircraft, sonic booms, and recurring helicopter missions. The Kern
County Zoning Ordinance (Section 19.08.160) provides guidelines for military review
of structures within military airspace; the areas within the GTA impacted by these
regulations are depicted on Figure 2-10, Military Review Requirements. The boundaries
of the R-2508 Complex are depicted in the R-2508 Joint Land Use Study, prepared by
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Issues
•
6.2.5
Portions of the GTA may be affected by existing and future operations of the
Mountain Valley Airport and regional military facilities. Efforts should be made
to prevent incompatibility between existing and future airport operations and
sensitive uses within the GTA.
Industrial Operations
The Lehigh Southwest Cement Company plant operates within the GTA (see Figure
6-1). Cement plants can produce significant levels of noise due to truck movements,
blasting, batch plant operations, bulldozer movements, rock crushing, etc. Typically,
cement plants begin work during the early morning hours, which can exacerbate the
potential for annoyance to nearby residents. The closest noise sensitive land uses to the
cement plant are the Monroe Continuation High School, which is located approximately
1/3 mile south and a mobile home park in Monolith about 1/2 mile southwest. The plant
also generates some ground vibration which could cause damage to structures located
within approximately 158 feet of a blasting site at the cement plant.
Issues
•
The GTA contains several known industrial operations that may generate high
levels of noise. Efforts should be made to ensure continued compatibility between
these existing and proposed operations and surrounding sensitive land uses.
May 2010
The Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill is also a major noise source in the GTA because landfills
can produce significant levels of noise due to truck movements, bulldozers, scrapers,
graders, etc. There are no known noise-sensitive land uses in proximity to the landfill.
6-9
6.2.6Energy Operations
A total of 967 acres within the eastern portion of the GTA have received a WE
(Wind Energy Combining District) zoning classification (See Figure 3-8, Wind Energy
Combining Districts), which permits the development of wind-farms. Thousands of
additional acres have received this designation immediately east of the boundaries of
the GTA. Wind turbines most commonly produce audible broadband noise (usually
described as a “swishing” or “whooshing” sound) as their revolving rotor blades
encounter turbulence in the passing air. Some wind turbines (usually older ones) can
also produce tonal sounds (i.e., a “hum” or a “whine” at a steady pitch), particularly at
low frequencies. Low frequency noise and repetitive impulse noise can also be produced.
Wind turbines only operate when there is wind to propel them, and wind in the natural
environment itself generates noise.
The applicable noise regulations are contained in Chapter 19.64 (Wind Energy
Combining District) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. Subsection J of Section
19.64.140 (Development Standards and Conditions) provides specific requirements for
allowable noise from wind turbine generators. The section contains specific policies for
wind turbines near a residence, school church, public library or other sensitive land
uses. Specifically, the provisions of the WE Combining District stipulate that audible
noise due from wind turbine operations shall not cause the exterior noise level to exceed
45 dBA for more than 5 minutes out of any 1-hour time period or to exceed 50 dBA
for any period of time when measured within 50 feet of any existing residence, school,
hospital, church, or public library.
Issues
•
The Greater Tehachapi Area is critical to the overall wind energy development
within Kern County. Wind energy development needs to be compatible with
existing and future surrounding land uses.
May 2010
Many modern wind turbines that have been designed with noise control in mind and
some of the generated noise can be “masked” by the background noise of the wind
itself. An exception to this can occur when a wind energy farm is located in hilly terrain
where nearby residences are in lower-lying, downwind areas that are sheltered from the
wind. In such cases, turbine noise may carry further than on flat terrain. Therefore, it is
important to evaluate each new proposal for wind energy development within the GTA
for potential audible noise, low frequency noise, pure tone noise, and repetitive impulsive
noise. Each new wind energy proposal should be appropriately mitigated to reduce
potential noise impacts on sensitive uses. Additionally, new wind energy development
should be encouraged within the boundaries of the Tehachapi Wind Energy Resource
area to minimize the potential for impacts on sensitive land uses.
6-10
6.3 NOISE ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Based on existing conditions and identified planning issues and assumptions, along with
public outreach efforts, the following noise goals, policies and implementation measures
have been identified for the GTA. The goals, policies, and implementation measures
of the Kern County General Plan are also hereby incorporated by reference. When
discrepancies exist between the General Plan and the GTASP, the more restrictive
6.3.1 General Noise and Noise Sensitive Areas
Goals
GOAL NOI.1 Protect the health and welfare of GTA residents from both longterm operational noise impacts (e.g, traffic noise) and shortterm construction related noise impacts.
GOAL NOI.2
Maintain the predominantly lower ambient noise levels reflective
of the rural and agricultural character of the GTA and its various
communities.
GOAL NOI.3Protect the economic base of Kern County by preventing the
encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise
producing roadways, industries, railroads, airports, oil and gas
extraction, and other sources.
GOAL NOI.4Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise which could be
harmful.
Policy NOI.1
The County shall not support proposed projects that generate
noise emissions that are not compatible to the standards
established in the GTASP and other applicable County
regulatory documens.
Policy NOI.2
Utilize good land use planning principles to reduce conflicts
related to noise emissions and require noise compatibility
between existing and future development according to the
May 2010
Policies
6-11
County’s noise standards. Effective mitigation measures shall
be incorporated into project design if required. Such mitigation
shall be designed to reduce noise levels to the County’s required
levels of 65 dB Ldn in outdoor activity areas and 45 dB Ldn or
less within interior living spaces or other noise sensitive interior
spaces.
Policy NOI.3Encourage vegetation and landscaping along roadways and
adjacent to other noise sources in order to increase absorption
of noise.
Policy NOI.4
Prohibit new noise-sensitive land uses in noise-impacted areas
unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the
project design. Such mitigation shall be designed to reduce
noise to the following levels:
a. 65 dB Ldn or less in outdoor activity areas;
b. 45 dB Ldn or less within interior living spaces or other noise
sensitive interior spaces.
Policy NOI.5Ensure that new development in the vicinity of airports will be
compatible with existing and projected airport noise levels as
set forth in the ALUCP.
Implementation 1 All development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure
conformance with the noise standards of 65 dB Ldn or less in
outdoor activity areas and 45 dB Ldn or less within interior
living spaces. Policies NOI.1, 2, 4
Implementation 3 All discretionary development proposals may be required to
submit an acoustical report, as deemed necessary by the Kern
County Environmental Health Services Department, indicating
the means by which the developer proposes to comply with the
noise standards. The acoustical report shall:
a. Be the responsibility of the applicant.
May 2010
Implementation 2 All development proposals for residential use or other noise
sensitive land uses shall be reviewed to ensure that noise
reduction measures such as setbacks, clustering, berming, and
sound walls are incorporated as design features where deemed
necessary to ensure compatibility with the adopted noise
standards. Policies NOI.1, 2
6-12
b. Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant
experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment
and architectural acoustics.
c. Be subject to the review and approval of the Kern County
Planning Department and the environmental Health
Services Department. All recommendations therein shall be
complied with prior to final approval of the project. Policies
NOI.1, 2, 3, 4
Implementation 4 Any required acoustical report shall include recommended
mitigation and shall:
a. Include representative noise level measurements with
sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately
describe local conditions.
b. Include estimated noise levels, in terms of CNEL, for
existing and projected future (10 – 20 years hence)
conditions, with a comparison made to the adopted policies
of the Noise Element.
c. Include recommendations for appropriate mitigation to
achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards
of the Noise Element.
d. Include estimates of noise exposure after the prescribed
mitigation measures have been implemented. If compliance
with the adopted standards and policies of the Noise
Element will not be achieved, a rationale for acceptance of
the project must be provided. Policies NOI.1, 2, 3, 4
Implementation 6 All discretionary development proposals shall be required
to adhere to the Kern County Noise Ordinance related to
construction times unless specific deviations are requested
during review of the project and specific mitigation measures
or conditions of approval are identified to off-set potential
impacts. Policies NOI.1, 2, 3, 4
Implementation 7 The County shall review discretionary development plans
to ensure compatibility with adopted Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plans. Policy NOI.5
May 2010
Implementation 5 All development proposals shall comply with Title 24 standards
of the State Health and Safety Code. These standards require
that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient
noise levels of 45 dB Ldn. Policies NOI.1, 2, 3, 4
6-13
Implementation 8 The County shall require proposed commercial and industrial
uses or operations to be designed or arranged so that they will
not subject residential or other noise sensitive land uses to
exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dB Ldn and interior noise
levels in excess of 45 dB Ldn. Policies NOI.1, 2, 3, 4
6.3.2 Roadways
Goals
GOAL NOI.5 Ensure that new sensitive land uses do not fall within the noise
contours of existing and proposed roadways.
Policies
Policy NOI.7Require that all new development within proximity to highways
and arterial roadways and require that all development within
proximity to such roadways be accompanied by an acoustical
analysis to ensure that the development would be compatible
with the roadway.
Implementation 9 All development proposals which would place residential or other
noise sensitive development within the 65 dB noise contours as
stated in Table 6-2 of this chapter shall be accompanied by an
acoustical analysis. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared
by a professionally certified consultant and shall demonstrate
that the new land uses have been properly designed to comply
with the County’s Ldn requirements of 65 dB or less in outdoor
activity areas and 45 dB or less within interior living spaces or
other noise sensitive interior spaces. Policy NOI.7
Goals
GOAL NOI.6 Discourage future development of sensitive uses within the
known noise contours of existing rail operations.
May 2010
6.3.3 Railway Operations and Ground Vibrations
6-14
Policies
Policy NOI.8Require all new development that is within close proximity to
existing rail operations to submit an acoustical analysis which
demonstrates that the development will be compatible with the
existing rail operations.
Implementation 10 All development proposals which would place residential or other
noise sensitive development within the 65 dB noise contours as
stated in Table 6-3 of this chapter shall be accompanied by an
acoustical analysis. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared
by a professionally certified consultant and shall demonstrate
that the new land uses have been properly designed to comply
with the County’s Ldn requirements of 65 dB or less in outdoor
activity areas and 45 dB or less within interior living spaces or
other noise sensitive interior spaces. Policy NOI.8
Implementation 11 All new development proposals which would place sensitive
land uses (such as residential, schools, churches, etc.) that may
be sensitive to ground borne vibration shall be accompanied by
a vibration analysis, as deemed necessary by the Kern County
Environmental Health Services Department. The vibration
analysis will ensure that sensitive vibration land uses are not
exposed to a vibration level greater than 75 VdB or to a peak
particle velocity of 0.2 in/sec or greater. Policy NOI.8
6.3.4 Airports and Airport Operations
Goals
Policies
Policy NOI.9
May 2010
The burden of providing acoustical compatibility shall be
placed on the proposed discretionary project rather than
existing development.
GOAL NOI.7 Protect existing noise generating land uses from encroachment
by noise sensitive land uses.
6-15
Policy NOI.10 Ensure that new development in the vicinity of airports will be
compatible with existing and projected airport noise levels as
set forth in the ALUCP.
Implementation 12 All development proposals which place residential or other noisesensitive development within the noise contours (as identified
by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan) for
the Tehachapi Municipal Airport or Mountain Valley Airport,
or within the Joint Powers Restricted R-2508 Complex (as
determined by the Kern County Planning Department) shall be
accompanied by an acoustical analysis. The acoustical analysis
shall be prepared by a professionally certified consultant and
shall demonstrate that the new land uses have been properly
designed to comply with the County’s Ldn requirements of 65
dB or less in outdoor activity areas and 45 dB or less within
interior living spaces or other noise sensitive interior spaces.
The acoustical analysis shall also address single-event aircraft
noise levels if the uses are under or near the flight paths from
adjacent airports and/or within the boundaries of the military
overflight areas identified by the R-2508 Complex. Policy NOI.9
Implementation 13 The County shall review discretionary development plans
to ensure compatibility with adopted Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plans. Policy NOI.9, 10
6.3.5 Industrial Operations
Goals
Policies
Policy NOI.11Require new development proposals within close proximity
to existing industrial operations or zone districts to submit an
acoustical study to demonstrate that the new development will
be consistent with the existing industrial entitlement.
May 2010
GOAL NOI.8 Ensure continued compatibility between these existing and
proposed industrial operations and surrounding sensitive land
uses.
6-16
Implementation 14 All development proposals which place residential or other noise
sensitive development within 1/2 mile of the Lehigh Southwest
Cement Company, the Tehachapi Sanitary Landfill, and
medium to heavy industrially (M-2 and M-3) zoned parcel, or
any other existing industrial noise-generating land use shall be
Policy NOI.11
6.3.6 Energy Operations
Goals
GOAL NOI.9 Minimize noise impacts and ensure compatibility between wind
farms and sensitive land uses.
Policy NOI.12
Continue to require new wind farm development to comply with
the noise standards of the Wind Energy Combining District
[Kern County Code Section 19.64.140(J)]. Portions of the
eastern GTA have the WE (Wind Energy Combining District)
zoning classification, which could permit future development
of wind energy systems within the GTA. Therefore, efforts
should be made to site future residential development or other
sensitive uses in areas that are not adjacent to WE zoned areas.
Policy NOI.13
New wind energy development should be encouraged within the
Tehachapi Wind Resource Area so as to minimize impacts to
noise sensitive areas.
May 2010
Policies
6-17
Implementation 15 Encourage all new wind energy development to be located
within an area that is zoned WE (Wind Energy Combining
District) and shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis.
The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a professionally
certified consultant and shall demonstrate that the new wind
energy development has been properly designed to comply with
the requirements of the WE Combining district. Additionally,
the study shall include an analysis of potential audible noise,
low frequency noise, pure tone noise, and repetitive impulsive
noise. Policy NOI.12
Implementation 16 All development proposals which place residential or other
noise sensitive development within 500 feet of property that is
zoned with the WE (Wind Energy Combining District) shall be
Policies NOI.12, 13
Implementation 17 All development proposals which place residential or other
noise sensitive development within 500 feet of property that is
zoned with the WE (Wind Energy Combining District) shall be
reviewed to ensure that the proposed development is consistent
with the development of an adjacent wind farm. Policy NOI.12
May 2010
6-18
Chapter 7
sustainabilit y
The purpose of the Sustainability Element is to reinforce the goal to promote sustainable
and strategic growth which utilizes energy and other resource-efficient practices. The
Sustainability Element, together with the other elements of the Greater Tehachapi Area
Specific Plan (GTASP), will enable the GTA to flourish and be preserved for current and
future generations. The GTASP recognizes the need to support a sustainable way of
life that ensures a safe and healthy environment. The Sustainability Element is closely
related to the Land Use Element because sustainability is directly achieved by the
distribution, location, pattern, character, and extent of land uses as well as population
density and building intensity. The Sustainability Element utilizes a combination of
sustainability measurements and tools to promote sustainability in the GTA.
The concept of sustainability, as it applies to this Specific Plan, recognizes that the rural,
very low density development patterns established over the past 50 years in the GTA do
not reflect the current concept of sustainability principles as described in the strategic
growth discussion in this Specific Plan. The core goal of this planning philosophy is
to promote compact, human-scale, walkable and transit-oriented communities with a
jobs-housing balance.
The County’s greatest role in sustainability is leadership. The County can influence
sustainability by refining and evolving existing land uses and shaping the character
of new development toward sustainability. The County’s role also includes the
development of sustainable development policies, emergency response and public safety
policies, community programs, and County operations. In the GTASP, the County has
developed policies and implementation measures that conserve natural resources over
the long-term while enhancing the economic vitality and quality of life and place. The
GTASP emphasizes the buildout of existing development in the GTA to minimize the
impacts of greenfield (vacant, undeveloped land) development and maximize existing
infrastructure systems.
•
Anticipating and planning for rural and urban economic development in an
orderly and predictable manner;
•
Establishing a long-term comprehensive land use plan that recognizes continued
resource uses in a conservative manner;
•
Managing open space and environmentally sensitive areas in accordance with the
requirements of local, State, and federal laws; and
•
Promoting innovative land use planning concepts that maximize efficient land
use, assure compatibility between land uses, reduce vehicle trips, and encourage
master planned developments and communities.
May 2010
CHAPTER 7 Sustainability Element
The Sustainability Element builds upon the General Plan’s strategic growth strategy
by using the following strategies:
7-2
7.2.1Strategic Growth
Strategic growth addresses growth-related uses by focusing on key issues relating to
sustainability and livability. These issues include:
•
Preservation of open space, agricultural land, and recreational opportunities.
•
Infrastructure efficiency–clustering development to avoid the costs and
environmental impacts of extensive roadway systems and other infrastructure.
•
Transportation options–the placement of development in locations and at
densities that would permit the growth of transportation alternatives to the
single-occupant automobile, such as walking, bicycling, carpooling, or the use of
public transit.
•
Reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas production.
The GTA is not an urban/suburban area but an assemblage of low-density, dispersed
rural communities. Many residents of the GTA have generally made a conscious decision
to have a lifestyle that is different from residents of urban and metropolitan areas.
Nevertheless, several strategic growth goals are still applicable to the GTA, including an
emphasis on continued sustainability; goals of achieving a unique sense of community
and place; expansion of the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices;
preservation and enhancement of natural and cultural resources; and a promotion of
public health.
AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)
AB 32 requires California to reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. AB 32 was preceded by Executive Order S-3-05 of 2005, which required an
80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. Both of
these State requirements will be partially implemented through new goals, policies,
programs, and implementation measures at the local level. Various elements of the
May 2010
Additionally, State mandates for sustainability have been and will increasingly play an
important role in guiding future local planning and development policies. Regulations
approved in recent years include AB 32, Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006;
SB 375 (2008), the Smart Growth/Climate Change through Regional Housing and
Transportation Planning Act; and AB 1358 (2008), Complete Streets Act. Compliance
with these provisions of State law requires that action be taken to enhance the
sustainability of new development. The impacts of these regulations and discussions
of actions that may be taken to implement them are provided below.
7-3
GTASP, including the Sustainability Element, encourage a range of actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and comply with State requirements.
SB 375 (2008)
SB 375 requires each federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
in California to develop a “sustainable communities strategy” to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks. SB 375 is related to and helps achieve
the goals of the previously-approved AB 32. In September 2009, the California Air
Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Regional Targets Advisory Committee completed a report
presenting their final recommendations to CARB for on the factors to be considered
and methodologies to be used in the emissions reduction target setting process. At
the time this Sustainability Element was written, the Kern Council of Governments
(COG) (the MPO serving the GTA) was working with CARB to develop greenhouse
gas reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks. Future planning actions taken
by Kern County will take into consideration the need to minimize motor vehicle use in
order to meet these targets.
While the greenhouse gas reduction targets for the region have not yet been established,
elements of the GTASP establish guidelines for land uses that promote sustainability,
which will aid in the achievement of emissions reduction targets.
AB 1358 (California Complete Streets Act of 2008)
Of key importance will be the County’s implementation of State sustainability
legislation, including the regulations listed in Section 7.1.1 (AB 32, SB 375, and AB
1358), and the other legislation, including:
Other Applicable Legislation and Standards:
1. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, the California Building Standards
Code:
• Part 6 (1978, as revised) – The Building Energy Efficiency Standards
portion of Title 24 establish energy efficiency standards for residential
May 2010
AB 1358 requires that, upon any substantive revision of the General Plan Circulation
Element, the community’s circulation plan be modified to plan for a balanced,
multimodal circulation system. The circulation plan must be designed to meet the
needs of all users of area roadways, defined to include motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians,
children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of
public transportation. While this legislation is not directly applicable to specific plans,
the GTASP abides by the goals of AB 1358 by encouraging a range of actions that may
be taken to encourage the use of multiple modes of transportation and comply with
State requirements.
7-4
•
and nonresidential buildings in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
California’s energy consumption.
Part 11 (2007) – The California Green Building Standards Code establishes
environmentally-friendly building standards relating to planning and design,
energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation
and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality. Mandatory provisions
of this Code took effect in 2010 .
2. AB 1493 (2002) – Requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce
greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks that apply
to 2009 and later model year vehicles.
3. AB 170 (2003) – Requires cities and counties to amend appropriate elements of
general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible
implementation strategies to improve air quality no later than one year after the
first revision of their housing elements that occurs after January 1, 2004.
7.2.2
Issues
•
A continuation of the existing low-density, sprawling pattern of development
within the GTA could decrease the efficiency of services, create a disproportionate
amount of vehicle miles traveled to places of employment and community
services, and could result in the loss of open space. Therefore, new development
will need to be consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation measures
found in each element of this plan. Although the resulting development may
differ from the existing patterns, the new development will be more sustainable
by consuming fewer valuable resources. It is important to note however, that
low-density development represents the preferred pattern of development for the
existing residents of the GTA, as expressed through the public outreach process.
•
The rural low-density nature of existing development patterns within the
GTA limit the ability to implement those strategic growth principles which
predominantly rely on concentrating growth in higher-density configurations.
Higher-density configurations may be difficult to achieve in some areas of the
GTA due to the lack of adequate infrastructure, including, but not limited to
roads, water/sewer systems, electricity and public services. The low population
density of existing development patterns in some areas of the GTA also limits
the economic viability of neighborhood commercial development. However,
neighborhood commercial uses should be encouraged, where feasible because it
can enhance the walkability of a community and provide opportunities for the
expansion of public transit.
•
The implementation of effective energy efficiency improvements in existing
structures is a challenge within the GTA because the high cost of these
improvements makes them infeasible for many households. Additionally, steps to
May 2010
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the following sustainability issues are
identified for the GTA:
7-5
•
It is also difficult to achieve reductions in water use in existing areas. Significant
reductions in water use would require modifications to landscaping and upgrades
to fixtures in existing homes and businesses, which is a difficult and expensive
task. The GTASP helps achieve increased water efficiency by encouraging new
development to use more efficient landscaping types and additional water-saving
fixtures than previous residential and non-residential construction.
•
The GTASP sustainability strategy recognizes that not all of these principles can
be easily implemented in the GTA, and that much of the future development in
the GTA will be driven by many of the same factors that resulted in the existing
development patterns. Therefore, there will need to be a balanced approach
to increasing the awareness of and implementing sustainability on a broader
level throughout the GTA. The approach will vary in terms of where it is being
implemented (e.g., a far-removed area that is not connected to utilities or near
public services versus an area close to the city of Tehachapi) and how sustainability
is being implemented (e.g., regulation on water usage or land use restriction
versus educational programs or incentives to promote energy efficiency) and to
what the sustainability measures are being applied (e.g., existing buildings versus
vacant land). A successful approach will employ as many measures as possible
with the cooperation of regulators, property owners, business owners and other
stakeholders.
•
Buildout of existing communities with approved lots and development rights
will likely occur on a lot-by-lot basis rather than the more typical new planned
communities and subdivision of tract homes, implementation of sustainable
principles will likely be relatively slow and incremental within the GTA.
7.3SUSTAINABILITY element GOALS,
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES
Based on the identified planning issues and assumptions, along with public outreach
efforts, the following sustainability goals, policies and implementation measures have
been identified for the GTA. The goals, policies and implementation measures listed
here are in addition to those sustainability items listed in the other elements of the
GTASP. In addition to these, a number of other policies that are incorporated into
other elements within the GTASP support sustainability goals. The goals, policies, and
May 2010
improve energy efficiency geared to individual homes and businesses will have a
limited impact on reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, as these
steps rarely impact the overall pattern of land uses. The GTASP helps achieve
increased energy efficiency by encouraging new development to meet a higher level
of energy efficiency than previous residential and non-residential construction.
7-6
implementation measures of the Kern County General Plan are also hereby incorporated
by reference. When discrepancies exist between the General Plan and the GTASP, the
more restrictive requirement shall apply. The Kern County Planning Director shall
determine which policy is more restrictive should conflicts arise.
Goals
GOAL SUS.1 Encourage alternatives to use of gas-powered vehicles.
GOAL SUS.2 Encourage development to use alternative renewable energy
sources and energy conservation and efficient measures.
GOAL SUS.3 Encourage landscape design and maintenance and agricultural
practices that reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides and
herbicides, as well as conserving water.
GOAL SUS.4 Encourage compact, mixed-use development that minimizes
auto use and reduces sprawl.
GOAL SUS.5 Encourage forms of development, residential, business and
agriculture that reduce water use, recycle wastewater on-site,
and employ innovative wastewater treatment processes that
eliminate the use of chemicals (e.g., biofiltration).
GOAL SUS.6Encourage the development of renewable energy facilities, such
as solar, wind and biomass, which reduce the GTA’s dependence
on natural gases and hydrocarbons.
Policies
Provide for alternative modes of transportation such as
walking, biking, carpools, vanpools, and public transportation
to reduce emissions associated with automobile use.
Policy SUS.2Encourage alternatives to employees commuting as occupants
of individual vehicles powered by non-sustainable fuels.
Policy SUS.3Encourage land use planning that features interconnected
roads, transit stops, sidewalks, and pedestrian and bicycle trails
to encourage efficient non-vehicle and pedestrian movement.
Policy SUS.4
May 2010
Promote energy-efficient design features, including site
orientation, use of lighter color roofing and building materials,
Policy SUS.1
7-7
and use of deciduous shade trees and windbreak trees to reduce
fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
Policy SUS.5Encourage the use of alternative energy fuels such as solar and
wind to conserve fossil fuels and improve air quality.
Policy SUS.6
Facilitate broader community understanding of energy
conservation issues, including the County’s energy conservation
policies.
Policy SUS.7Encourage the use of drought-tolerant, low-water-consuming
landscaping as a means of reducing overall and per capita water
demand.
Policy SUS.8Encourage the use of agricultural management practices that
result in the efficient use of water resources.
Policy SUS.9
Promote organic agriculture in order to minimize use of chemical
pesticides and herbicides and to encourage agritourism.
Policy SUS.10
Promote higher-density compact development,
compatible, to maximize the efficient use of land.
where
Policy SUS.11Encourage the use of the innovative design features as a means
of preserving open space.
Policy SUS.12Encourage infill development to maximize the efficient use of
land and infrastructure.
Support alternative wastewater treatment systems for rural
development such as shared septic systems, innovative septic
systems, and small package sewage treatment plants that
include the ability to utilize recycled water.
Policy SUS.14Encourage agricultural practices that require reduced water
demand and utilize the most efficient irrigation practices.
Policy SUS.15
May 2010
Support funding opportunities that assist in the replacement
of outdated household and commercial appliances with energy
efficient appliances.
Policy SUS.13
7-8
Implementation 1Encourage the placement of multi-purpose park-and-ride
facilities in the GTA, located along primary circulation routes.
Policies SUS.1, 2, 3
Implementation 2 Utilize County implementing tools including, but not limited
to, Combining Zone districts CL (Cluster) and SP (Special
Planning), to facilitate development that incorporates “transitready” design, interconnected roadways, bicycle trails, and
pedestrian paths. Policy SUS.3
Implementation 3 In its review and approval of new development, the County
will seek to encourage use of sustainable energy sources
and technologies while promoting the economic benefits of
conservation. Policies SUS.4, 5
Implementation 4Encourage all new development to implement green building
practices which reduce the environmental impact of renovations
and new construction by reducing energy and water use,
reducing the release of harmful emissions, incorporating
sustainable materials in construction, reducing heat island
impacts, reducing stormwater quality and quantity impacts, as
well as other improvements. Policy SUS.4
Implementation 5 All new development shall utilize energy-efficient streetlights
where appropriate and shall be encouraged to retrofit existing
streetlights with more efficient technology. Policy SUS.4
Implementation 7 The County will support the implementation of water
conservation strategies as identified through Urban Water
Management Plans, County/CSD policies and State and Federal
regulations. Policy SUS.6, 7
Implementation 8 The County shall encourage all residents to use of native or
adapted vegetation as a part of drought-tolerant landscape
materials to reduce water requirements. Policy SUS.7
Implementation 9 The County shall work with the Tehachapi Resource
Conservation District to facilitate use of more efficient irrigation
May 2010
Implementation 6 The County shall encourage building designs that incorporate
natural lighting and energy-efficient fixtures into architectural
designs to reduce energy use. Policy SUS.4
7-9
systems, such as drip and micro-drip irrigation systems. Policy
SUS.8, 9
Implementation 10 The County shall promote infill development in existing
communities and the City of Tehachapi’s sphere of influence
where existing infrastructure services are available. Policy
SUS.12
Implementation 11 The County shall investigate alternative wastewater treatment
systems for areas without a community services district
and shall provide information to development applicants on
shared septic systems, alternative septic systems, and package
treatment systems. Policies SUS.13, 14
Implementation 12 The County shall encourage the development of a Greenhouse
Gas Action Plan to identify methods to mitigate future green
house gas emissions. Policies SUS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Implementation 13Encourage the Greater Tehachapi Area Water Preservation
Committee to create and implement a Sustainability Task Force.
The purpose of the task force shall be to encourage a localized
grass-roots effort to educate the public and identify local
methods for sustaining growth and development throughout
the GTA based on existing resources. Policies SUS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15
May 2010
7-10
Chapter 8
housing
8.1Purpose and Scope
CHAPTER 8 Housing Element
The housing element listed in the Kern County General Plan addresses the need to
provide housing for residents within the county, including the GTA, and provides goals
and policies to guide this effort. The Kern County Housing Element, as adopted on
December 9, 2008 and subsequent dates thereafter, should be referenced for all direction
relating to housing.
May 2010
8-2

Greater Tehachapi Area Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Read Newsletter

America`s Job Center of California: Youth Programs

Additional Info

GreenTech Automotive Begins Erecting Steel Structure for Tunica

THE BREEZE - aauwtehachapi

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

www.dyrbergkern.co.nz

alhena - JG Group

Newsletter - Tehachapi Chamber of Commerce