MEMORANDUM
August 8, 2024
TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Manpreet Kaur, Chair
Bruce Freeman
Bob Smith
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Update on Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
BACKGROUND
History
For nearly 30 years, the City of Bakersfield (City) and County of Kern (County) successfully implemented the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The MBHCP was a regional habitat conservation plan and state permit that allowed impacts to federal and state listed species resulting from urbanization and related development activities. Although extensive energy was expended over the last ten years in efforts toward preparation of a new habitat conservation plan, the MB HCP and associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) expired on January 1, 2023, without a subsequent plan in effect.
On February 8, 2023, staff presented a draft Habitat Conservation Plan that was determined to be approvable by the California Department of F ish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies. The draft plan included:
Grading Hold process was retained. Incidental take of protected species was authorized via the release of the “hold” on grading permits.
Habitat Mitigation Fee rose from $2,145 to $14,070 per gross acre. The 5-day grading permit application review time was unchanged. Avoidance and Minimization Measures remained similar to the MBHCP. An Urban Kit Fox Artificial Den Program was to be established, with a Kit Fox Biologist added to City staff.
A Public Education Campaign with website and Public Education Specialist position was to be added to City staff.
A Disease Treatment & Monitoring Program would have been established. Funding for one (1) employee with CDFW was included, enhancing CDFW response times and availability.
The City and the County were permittees within the new proposed HCP. The term of the new HCP/ITP was to be thirty years.
At that meeting, Council expressed concern over the per acre mitigation fee and directed staff to identify amendments to the proposed draft HCP that would reduce per acre mitigation costs. Staff have continued
discussions with council members along with va rious developers to understand the range of fee that would minimize public concern. Staff have been evaluating ways to get this extremely important program across the finish line which requires a contract amendment that our City Council will not approve without some certainty that CDFW and USFWL are tentatively in agreement.
Number of Permittees
The February 2023 report identified that the County of Kern was not supportive of the HCP as proposed, which included a per acre mitigation fee of $14,070 with two permittees (the City and County) and a fee of $15,681 if the City was the sole permittee to the plan. Moving forward, The County of Kern has communicated that they will not participate in the City’s habitat mitigation planning efforts. Therefore, the current proposal is for a single-permittee plan.
Costs
While the draft HCP presented to the City Council in February 2023 initially suggested a single-permittee fee of $15,681 per acre, preliminary assessments and cost revisions suggest the possibility of reducing this figure to approximately $11,000 per acre. Preliminary evaluation and revisions of costs indicate the potential to reduce costs down to approximately $11,000 per acre . This cost estimate is based on the assumption of 7,325 acres of development and 5,500 acres of habitat designated for conservation.
The changed assumptions include:
1. It takes people to administer any HCP. The reductions outlined below provide a net sum of 3 FTEs, down from five. 2.5 FTEs would function as the HCP staff at the City, and ½ FTE would be dedicated to the Bakersfield HCP at CDFW. The revised administrative costs are:
a. Principal planner (50% time down from 100%)
b. Associate planner (50% time down from 100%)
c. Accountant clerk (50% time down from 100%)
d. GIS support (50% time)
e. Real estate specialist (50% time) Real estate support would be subcontracted. f. CDFW biologist (50% time down from 100%)
2. The proposed kit fox program is designed to address the urban kit fox program. USFWS and CDFW expressed that this is the heart of the new program and desire that it be retained as much as possible. The kit fox program costs are:
a. Retain full-time on-call biologist (no change)
b. Public education staff (25% time down from 100%)
c. Public education budget ($12,500 per year, down from $50,000 per year) d. Retain research and disease treatment (no change)
e. Retain den program (no change)
The public outreach component of the program has been significantly reduced. It could be anticipated that outreach be provided in the form of web -based educational content as part of the HCP’s web content.
3. The land acquisition ratio would change as would the land acquisition strategy. a. Reduced the number of transactions as a result of larger land acquisitions and fewer acquisitions as a result. The assumption would be that each transaction is 100 acres in size (not 50 acres), and that a few larger purchases are better. b. Reduced mitigation ratio (0.75:1), or ¾ acre of habitat conservation for each acre of development, because proposed development lands are currently under intensive agricultural practices. A total of 5,494 acres of high -value land will be permanently protected.
4. The fee collected to support the program is proposed to be split into two payments. A portion of approximately $4 -5000 to be paid at grading permit issuance and remainder $6 -7000 at final inspection or close of escrow of the actual building permit. As part of the process the city may need to bridge the gap of funding between the timing at year end or as determined. This would be part of the analysis.
CDFW Discussion
City staff met with CDFW and Wildlife Agency staff on October 7 th to discuss options as outlined above.
CDFW is not able to utilize a part FTE thus that potential cost is an all or nothing item. The latter is tied to timing of reviews. It was agreed that when a submittal is made to CDFW, it could be earlier in the process to minimize the impact to the overall project. The second issue is the ratio of replacement habitat land.
The proposed ratio of 0.75:1 is not acceptable as proposed. However, both CDFW and the Wildlife Agency strongly voiced the opinion of a focused urban kit fox program. Under this new focus the ratio will most likely go down further, perhaps even zero or 0.25:1. During the meeting CDFW also brought up that the Burrowing owl will most likely be added the endangered list and thus need to be added to our proposed plan. It was clear from the conversation that the City needs to pivot and thoroughly explore this option to understand the cost and development implication.
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
City Staff needs to have a few more meetings with CDFW staff to fully understand the elements of a focused urban kit fox program. The intent is to provide dens and travel corridors within the developments to support the species. For example, an artificial den could be constructed in the corner of a fenced sump area along with an opening large enough for a kit fox to get through but not a dog or larger predator.
There would need to be a pathway to get to and from the sump for the kit fox to travel. There are a lot of built-out sumps and parks that could have habitat added. Staff need to understand space needs and operational constraints. Staff have said that ideas like conservation easements over golf courses are not likely to happen. Clearly this is a different direction than the current plan. There are many unknowns as this will be the first of its kind plan. Staff needs to determine and fully understand the scope of the plan changes to be able work with the consultant to evaluate the cost of the plan changes to the current document.
CONCLUSIONS
City staff continue to work with CDFW and the Wildlife agency to develop a habitat conservation plan that is acceptable to the City, Developers and Agencies. This change in concept will take some time to ar rive at solutions acceptable to all. I see this as an opportunity for Bakersfield to be a leader in innovation toward a complex environmental issue. CSUB and its consultants are working on a similar program for their campus. Staff can reach out and work together to develop strategies that work for both. I see an urban Kit fox program as one that will take time to develop long term proven strategies. Partnering may provide the research necessary to track success and overall health of the kit fox species under this approach. Staff realize the strong desire to have the coverage of an HCP and associated ITP. Staff will work diligently toward getting a plan prepared for approval and adoption. Once the scope and understanding of added urban kit fox elements, staff will bring a follow-up report back to this committee.