HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3593ORDINANCE NO. ~9 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF
THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING
MAP 102-32 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 14 -+
ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF BRIMHALL ROAD AND CALLOWAY DRIVE
FROM C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND C-2
(REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) TO R-1 (ONE FAMILY
DWELLING, 6,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE)
ZONE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of
Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing on a petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield generally located at the southeast corner of Brimhall Road and
Calloway Drive; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 16-94 on March 17, 1994, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of
the Municipal Code to approve a change in zoning from C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) and C-2 (Regional Commercial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling, 6,000
square foot minimum lot size) zone as delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 102-32
marked Exhibit "B", by this Council and this Council has fully considered the findings
made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did
make several general and specific findings of fact which warranted a negative declaration
of environmental impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Regional Commercial) to R-1 (One Family
Dwelling, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) zone and the Council has considered said
findings and all appear to be true and correct; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and
adoption of Negative Declarations, as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's
CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, Planning
Commission and this Council: and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration with mitigation was advertised and
posted on February 4, 1994, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows low density
residential development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the
following findings:
All required public notices have been given.
2. The provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have been followed.
3. That proposed Zone Change No. 5543 is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
4. The proposed zoning with mitigation will not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
5. Conditions of approval attached to the project as Exhibit "A" are
included in the project to minimize and/or mitigate impacts, and to ensure that the
density allowed by the general plan is not exceeded.
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and
correct.
2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
3. Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City
of Bakersfield be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use zoning of
that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property is shown on Zoning
Map No. 102-32 marked Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are
more specifically described in attached Exhibit "C".
4. Such zone change is hereby made subject to the conditions of
approval listed in attached Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its passage.
......... O00 .........
2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and
adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
~ 0 I !a~U, , by the following vote:
AYES: COUN~itMEMBERS .kt~.~lkt6yt', EDWARDS,~IeldONO, amine, BRUNNI, ROWI-ES, SALVAGG~O
NOES' COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: CQUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED JUN 0 ! 159I`
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
MJM:pjt
March 25, 1994
res\o194s4zc.cc
3
EXHIBIT "C"
ZONE CHANGE 5543
Those three (3) parcels of land being portions of the northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 29
South, Range 27 East, M.D. M., City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
PORTION OF C-2 (REGIONAl, COM34ERCIAL)
ZONE REMAINING C-2 ZONE
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Section 32;
THENCE South 00043'24" West, along the west line of said Section 32, a distance of 8.49 feet to a
point on a non-tangent, 1439.00 foot radius curve, concave to the north, having a radial bearing of
North 10° 12' 55" East from said point on curve, said point also being on the north fight of way line
of realigned Brimhall Road per Specific Plan adopted by the City Council;
THENCE easterly, along said right of way curve, through a central angle of 07°07'10" an arc distance
of 178.81 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent, 2392.80 foot radius curve, concave to the north,
having a radial bearing of North 02*36'00" East from said beginning of curve;
TItENCE easterly along said right of way curve, through a central angle of 10o30'52" an arc distance
of 439.11 feet to a point on the north line of said Section 32;
THENCE North 89010'29" West, along said north line, 615.45 feet to the point of be~nning.
Containing 0.281 acres (more or less)
C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO
R-1 (ONE-FAMILy DWELLINGI ZONE
Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 32;
THENCE South 00043'24" West along the west line of said Section 32, a distance of 119.90 feet to a
point on a non-tangent, 1549.00 foot radius curve, concave to the north, having a radial bearing of
North 09°32'12" East from said point on curve, said point also being on the south fight of way line
of realigned Brimhall Road per Specific Plan adopted by the City Council, also being the true point
of beginning;
THENCE easterly, along said right of way curve, through a central angle of 02°36'01" an arc distance
of 70.30 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent, 1558.75 foot radius curve, concave to the north,
having a radial bearing of North 06° 32' 11" East from said beginning of curve;
TttENCE easterly, along said fight of way curve, through a central angle of 15°56'4T' an arc distance
of 433.82 feet;
THENCE North 80~34'40" East, along said right of way line, 160.70 feet;
T!tENCE departing from said right of way line, South 00°43'24" West, 246.68 feet to a point on the
south line of the north 330.00 feet of said Section 32;
THENCE North 89o10'29" West, along said south line, 660.00 feet to a point on the west line of said
Section 32;
THENCE North 00043'24" East, along said west line, 210.10 feet to the point of beginning;
Containing 3.151 acres (more or less)
C-10IEIGI~BORHOOD COMMERCI~L~ ZONE TO
R-1 (ONE-FAMILy DWELI,ING~ ZONE
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 32;
T~ENCE South 00043'24" West, along the west line of said Section 32, a distance of 330.00 feet to
the true point of be~nnlng;
THI~NCE South 89010'29" East, 660.00 feet;
THENCE North 00043'24" East, 246.68 feet to a point on the south right of way line of realigned
Brimhall Road per Specific Plan adopted by the City Council;
THENCE North 80~34'40" East, along said right of way line, 98.17 feet to the beginning of a non-
tangent, 1455.00 foot radius curve, concave southeasterly, having a radial bearing of South 08°53'27"
East from said beginning of curve;
THENCE northeasterly, along said right of way curve, through a central angle of 02~03'32" an arc
distance of 52.28 feet;
THENCE departing from said right of way line, South 00°43'24" West, 750.37 feet;
THENCE North 89o10'29" West, 808.33 feet to a point on the west line of said Section 32;
THENCE North 00043'24" East, along said section line, 478.33 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 9.761 acres (more or less)
O:EXH-4194
RTY:cah
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment IV
Zone Change No. 5543
Plannine Department:
In order to mitigate the impacts of any development of the site on the kit fox (a Federally-listed
endangered species), the applicant must follow the Advisory Notice, detailing the Interim
Mitigation Measures established for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBItCP). These measures are necessary to prevent unauthorized take of foxes and to offset any
losses to kit fox habitat resulting from on-going construction activities. (Mitigation)
Prior to the issuance of a building permit within the project area, the Kern High School District
and Fruitvale School District must be paid the amount of $3.65 per square foot of assessable space
(as that term is defined in Government Code Section 65995) for each residence for the purpose of
providing school facilities. This amount will increase in even-numbered years according to the
adjustment for inflation determined by the State Allocation Board for Class B construction at its
January meeting, which increase will be effective as of the date of that meeting. This payment will
not be required if the Kern High School District has certified in writing that alternative mitigation
measures have been undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school
overcrowding. (Mitigation)
Applicant/developer shall dedicate park land or contribute in-lieu fees to the North Bakersfield
Recreation and Park District. (Mitigation)
The developer shall provide a minimum of 10 feet of landscaping outside the road right-of-way
along the south (as realigned) side of Brimhall Road, between Coffee Road and Calloway Drive.
(Mitigation)
Public Works Department:
Upon further subdivision or development, the developer shall pay to the City fees for the
proportionate share of future traffic signals in the project area impacted from the potential
increase in trip generation between the proposed land use and the existing land use. The signals
and the developer's proportionate share are as follows:
*Brimhall Rd at Calloway Dr $ 910.00
Calloway Dr at Palm Ave $ 1,300.00
*Brimhall Rd at Jewetta Ave $ 650.00
Brimhall Rd at Harvest Crk $ 1,820.00
Calloway at future street $ 1,950.00
south of Brimhall
Calloway at WB Kern Riv $ 1,950.00
Fwy Ramps (north side)
Calloway at EB Kern Riv $ 1,170.00
Fwy Ramps (south side)
(0.7% of $130,000.00)
(1.3% of $130,000.00)
(0.5% of $130,000.00)
(1.4% of $130,000.00)
(1.5% of $130,000.00)
(1.5% of $130,000.00)
(0.9% of $130,000.00)
$ 9,750.00
Exhibit "A"
6PA 1-94, Segment IV
ZC 5543
Page 2
Upon further subdivision or development, the developer shall pay to the City a fee for the
proportionate share of the cost of widening the following intersections. The cost of the widening
will be determined from an estimate provided by the developer and approved by the City
Engineer.
Intersection
St Rt 58 at Coffee Rd
St Rt 58 at Calloway Dr
Stockdale Hwy at Calloway Dr
Project percenta~,e
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
Upon further subdivision or development, the north/south street identified as Gandole Drive
(along the current Calloway Drive alignment) shall be reconstructed so as to not connect to
Brimhall Road.
An offer of dedication will be required to allow for the construction of Brimhall Road within the
project area in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. The offer of dedication
shall be submitted to the City upon development or recordation of any subdivision map or
certificate of compliance within the GPA area.
At the time of further development or subdivision, the property owner(s) within the GPA area of
any areas not already within a maintenance district shall request to be annexed to an existing
maintenance district or request creation of a new maintenance district for their property.
10.
The traffic study and resulting impacts identified in items 5. and 6. above are based on a
residential density of 72 single family units (as stated in the traffic study), while the land use
proposed could allow more residential units. The fee per residential unit is $135.42 plus the
proportionate amount determined for item 6. above. Should an increase of more than 5% in the
residential units be proposed for any specific project within the GPA area, then a review and
possible revision to the traffic study shall be required at tentative map submittal. Otherwise, the
fee of $135.42 per dwelling unit plus the fee resulting from item 6. above will be maintained even
if the residential units that are finally created are less than, or no more than 5% greater than that
proposed so that proportionate local traffic mitigation will be achieved.
NOTE: * indicates adjustments have been made on these items to account for the Regional
Transportation Impact Fee's contribution towards the item.
p:194s4.ea
C.2
FP-S
C-O
m
ITl
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ZONING MAP 102-3£
SEC 32 T 29S R 27E
LEGEND
PROJECT NO.
GPA 1-94, 5~gnnent IV
Zone Change-#5543
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EFFECT
EARTH Soils
Geologic Hazards
Erosion/Sedimentation
Topography
WATER
Quality/Quantity
- Groundwater
- Surface W~ter
Flooding/Drainage
AIR
Air Quality
Climate/Air Movement
Odors
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
plants
Animals
Rare/Endangered Species
Habitat Alteration
TRANSPORTATION
Traffic/Circulation
Parking
Traffic Hazards
Air/Water/Rail Systems
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological
Historical
IMPACT
stPll
MITIGATION
Y I N ORD
EFFECT
LAND USE
Compatibility
General Plan/Zoning
Growth Inducement
Prime Ag Land Loss
PUBLIC SERVICES
Police
Fire
Schooal
parks/Recreation
Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Maintenance
UTILITIES
Water
Storm Drainage
Natural Gas
Electricity
Communication
POPULATION
HOUSING
HEALTH HAZARDS
NOISE
AESTHETICS
LIGHT AND GLARE
~ ~ NATURALRESOURCES
~ ENERGYUSAGE
(NOTE: DISCUSSION REGARDING THEASOVEIMPACTSISA~T'ACHED.)
IMPACT
sip II
MITIGATION
S = Significant P +- Potentially Significant I = Insignificant/No Effect Y = Yes N = No ORD = Ordinance Requirement
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Dces the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or ammai community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal specms, or eliminate
~mportant examples of the malor periods of California history or prehistory?
Y N
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environmental goals? fA shor~
term ~mpact on the environment is one of which occurs In a reYative~y brief. definite penod of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future. t
Does the project have impacts which individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A prolectmaytrnpacton two or
more BeDarete resources where the impact on each resource ~s relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those
~mpects on the environment is significant).
Does the project have envrronmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
Ilk FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION
3N THE BASIS OF THIS iNITIAL EVALUATION IchecK onel:
It has Peen fauna that the propasea project COULD NOT have a s~gnlficant effect on the environment:
therefore. a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be preparea.
/It is been found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment.
there will not be a significant effect in this case because MITIGATION MEASURES. as identified in the
Discussion of Environmental Impacts. have been ~ncorporated into the prolect: therefore. a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has been founct that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enwronment, and an EIR
(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) wilt be prepared.
APPENDIX I
General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment IV
Zone Change No. 5543
Earth
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Soils - Construction of the proposed project will result in up to 15 acres of Wasco Sandy Loam soils
to be insignificantly disrupted, compacted, displaced, overcovered and uncovered by grading, filling,
trenching, installation of drainage facilities, and other ground preparation activities necessary for
urban site development. Although these soils are considered "prime" for agricultural purposes by the
State Department of Conservation when provided with irrigation, cultivation of the site has been
discontinued upon urban development of adjacent areas, and the site has been effectively isolated
from any on-going agricultural activities. According to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Survey
for Northwestern Kern County, the primary limitations imposed on urbanized development within the
Wasco Sandy Loam soils unit is rare instances of flooding, and the need for community sewer systems
for medium to high density development levels. Adequate drainage facilities, as well as connections
to an existing community sewage collection and treatment system, will be required as conditions of
approval for any future residential development, as provided in Titles 16 and 17 of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code. Standard ordinance compliance includes the requirement for soils and grading
reports prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes.
Geologic Hazards - Geology of the site consists of recent alluvial fan and floodplain deposits, which
are not considered a unique geologic or physical feature. The site is currently undeveloped, although
extensive site preparation and grading activities have occurred in conjunction with recent adjacent
urban development. The proposed project would not create an unstable earth condition or cause
changes to any geologic substructure. The project will not expose people, structures, or property to
major geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides or ground failure.
Although no specific geologic hazards are known to occur within the boundaries of the project site,
there are numerous geologic fractures in the earth's crust within the San Joaquin Valley, which is
bordered by major, active fault systems. All development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area
is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Current development standards will require the project to
comply with appropriate seismic design criteria from the Uniform Building Code, adequate drainage
facility design, and complete preconstruction soils and grading studies. As the site is outside the
Alquist-Priolo Seismic Zones, no special seismic studies would be required for this site prior to
building structures for human occupancy.
Erosion / Sedimentation - Although the Kern River is located one-half mile south of the project site,
development of the site will have no direct impact upon the river. Typical ordinance requirements
ensure that erosion, siltation or deposition of soils from the site by water run-off will not occur
through development of the project, nor through drainage of the site after construction. Wind erosion
and fugitive dust may occur during the construction process; however, normal use of water spraying
will control wind erosion impacts and should not be considered significant.
Topography - The slope of the natural terrain on-site is flat. Project development will not result in
a change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features of the area to a significant degree.
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 2
Water
Water Quality / Quantity -
Groundwater - The project will not alter the direction or rate of flow, or substantially deplete the
quantity of groundwater resources, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. The project will not contaminate a public water
supply, substantiallyinterferewith groundwater rechargeor substantiallydegradewater quality. Water
service would be provided for the development by the City of Bakersfield; however, the cumulative
impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant.
Surface Water - The project will not result in discharge into any surface water, alter surface water
quality to a significant degree, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity.
The proposal will not contaminate any public water supply. As the site is not located adjacent to or
contains any rivers, streams or canals, the proposal will not result in changes in currents or the course
or direction of surface water movements.
Floodine/l)rainaee - The project will not result in changes to the course or direction of fresh water
currents, or result in changes to the amount of surface water, as the site does not contain, nor will
the proposal directly impact, any rivers, streams or canals. The site is protected from the 100-year
flood hazard by an earthen levee alongside the Cross Valley Canal, on the north side of the Kern
River channel: however, there may be a limited, but insignificant hazard, from flooding levels which
exceed the 100-year flood levels. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and
amount of surface water runoff will change as the project is developed. Current development
standards require the project to comply with adequate drainage facility design, complete
preconstruction soils and grading studies, and compliance with the City Public Works or Building
Departments.
According to the Safety Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, the project site
is within an area subject to inundation in the event of a failure of the Isabella Dam. In a "worst case"
scenario of dam failure, the site could be impacted by flooding within 6 to 8 hours after a failure
event (Page VIII-7, Figure VIII-2, 2010 General Plan). The City of Bakersfield's Flood Evacuation
Plan, which includes the identification of flood evacuation routes, has been adopted for use in the
event of such an emergency.
Air Quality - Short-term, non-significant, air pollutant impacts would be generated on and off-site
during construction of the proposed land uses, including sources such as: dust from trenching, grading
and vehicles; exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and construction equipment; and, emissions from
asphalt paving of parking lots and roadways. Although there would be short and long-term air quality
impacts from mobile sources of pollutants generated by the estimated daily volume of 978 vehicles
produced by the proposed land uses on-site (see Transportation), there will not be a substantial
increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a significant deterioration of ambient air quality
through development of this project. The proposal will not violate any ambient air quality standard,
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Append~ I
GPA1-94, SegmentIV
Page 3
Climate/Air Movement - Land uses intended or allowed through the proposed project will not
significantly alter air movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change in climate, either
locally or regionally.
Odors - Land uses permitted as a result of the proposed project do not appear to have the potential
to create objectionable odors.
Biolol~ical Resources
Plants - The 15-acre project site proposed for low density residential development is currently in a
disturbed state, and formerly consisted of a valley grassland vegetative community prior to agricultural
use. New plant species will be introduced as a result of ornamental landscaping the site with urban
uses. A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing plant species, as the site
would be completely developed. The proposal will not entirely eliminate a plant community or
substantially diminish or reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed
significant.
Animals - No animals were observed using the graded and disturbed site. New animal species, such
as domesticated dogs and cats, will be introduced as a result of occupying the site with urban uses.
A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing animal species, as the site would
be completely developed. Although existing species of animals on-site would be removed through
urban development, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or substantially
diminish or significantly reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed
significant.
Rare/Endaneered Soecies - A biological survey completed in 1992 for the adjacent Calloway Drive
extension project revealed potential San Joaquin kit fox dens or habitat in undeveloped and
undisturbed areas within the vicinity of the project, particularly within the Kern River flood plain to
the south of the project site (The Planning Center, 1992). The proposal should not substantially
affect, reduce the number, or restrict the range of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animal
or plant, or their habitat, due to the disturbed nature of the site and its proximity to substantial urban
development. In order to mitigate the impacts of any natural to urban land conversion on the kit fox
(a Federally-listed Endangered Species), or its habitat, the applicants must, prior to ground
disturbance, follow the Metropolitan Bakersfield I Iabitat Conservation Plan Advisory Notice, detailing
the Interim Mitigation Measures established for the MBHCP. (A copy of the Advisory Notice is
attached in Exhibit "A".)
Habitat Alteration - Urban development may alter the area's habitat by introducing domesticated or
feral species of animals into the area. The project would not result in the creation of a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals from the surrounding open and developed lands. These impacts
to wildlife habitat are considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), and are not considered significant for the project
proposed.
Although this habitat alteration is not "significant" pursuant to CEQA, the applicant will be subject
to California Department of Fish and Game environmental review fees. The applicant shall pay
$1,250, plus clerk filing fees, prior to public hearing, in accordance with Section 1005, Public
Resources Code.
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 4
Transoortation
Traffic/Circulation - The proposed project may generate additional vehicular movement, as shown
in Table "1". The project may potentially cause an increase in traffic which may be substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may substantially
impact existing transportation systems. The project may significantly alter present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or goods. A traffic analysis has been required for the
proposal. However, the impacts of the proposal shall be reduced to less than significant through the
City ordinance requirement that all on-site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this
development be mitigated. In addition, those regional impacts caused by this development are also
required to be mitigated according to the regional traffic impact fee ordinance. These measures are
listed in Appendix "A", "Recommended Mitigation Measures".
PROPOSED
t.,~n~o USE/
ZONING
LR
TOTAL
TABLE 1
Proposed Project
Traffic Generation
ACREAGE
UNITS OR
sQ.
102
AVERAGE VEHICLE
TRIP ENDS
9.55 / unit
TOTAL TRIP
ENDS
I
974 * I
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Ed., 1991
* Assuming maximum buildout potential based on net area of 14.1 acres.
Parking - The proposed development will affect existing parking by creating a demand for off-street
residential parking spaces. These impacts will be reduced to less than significant through the parking
ordinance requirement that at least two off-street parking spaces be provided for each residential unit.
Traffic Hazards - There would be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed project.
Air/Water/Rail Systems - The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological- There are no known archaeological or cultural resources which would be impacted
by site development. As part of the circulation of this Initial Study, an archaeological records search
will be requested of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center housed at
CSU Bakersfield. Should the records reveal the existence of any sites within the project, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be made a condition of any future development project approval, prior to
site disturbance activities.
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 5
Iiistorical - The site is vacant and contains no historical structures or other resources to be impacted
by development on the site. The project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory or result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object.
Land Use
Comoatibilitv - The proposed project will include low density residential types of land uses. The
existing land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site include single family residential and
vacant areas, which are indicated in Table "2". These uses are compatible with proposed land uses.
The proposed project will not conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals of the community,
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, or create a significant land
use compatibility problem.
TABLE 2
Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties
Public
LAND USE ZONING
LOCATION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE
NORTH General Commercial/ Vacant, single family
Low Density Res. C-2, R-1 residential
SOUTH Low Density Res. R-1 Single family res.
EAST Low Density Res. R-1 Single family res.
WEST General Commercial County A * Rural residential
City C-1 and C-2 pending completion of Calloway No. 6 Annexation.
General Plan/Zoniw, - The present land use designation on the site is GC (General Commercial),
with existing zoning of C-I (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (Regional Commercial). The
proposal will amend the land use to low density residential (< 7.26 units/net acre) and the zoning of
the site to R-I (One Family Dwelling, 6,000 sq.ft. lots). The proposal is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan policies and implementation measures and will not
significantly conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area.
Growth Inducement - The proposed project will not induce substantial growth.
Prime A~ricultural Land - No agricultural crops currently exist on site and the site shows no evidence
of recent agricultural uses. Removal of 15 acres of land through the proposed project will not have
a significant impact upon the conversion of potentially prime farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Services
Police - Police protection for the area is currently provided by the City of Bakersfield. Police
protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project buildout. Current City
Police service standards require 1.32 officers for each 1,000 people in the city. Projected increase of
Append~ I
GPA1-94, SegmentIV
Page 6
308 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of .41 additional law enforcement
officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid
for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
Fire - Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire
protection agreement between the City and County. Projected increase of 308 new residents and 102
new structures into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and
personnel to maintain current levels of service; however, this potential increase in fire protection
services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed
significant.
Schools - Proposed development of low density land uses could produce 102 housing units and could
generate approximately 66 school-age children as indicated in Table "3". This increase may necessitate
the construction of additional school facilities. Existing school impact fees and increasedproperty tax
revenues should reduce impacts on schools to less than significant. Project review by appropriate
elementary and high school districts may, however, identify significant impacts to school facilities
through this project, and may recommend additional mitigation measures be added to the project.
T.4~LE 3
School Children Generation
TYPE AND ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL
NUMBER OF K - 8 9 - 12 PUPILS
DWELLING
UNITS
Single Family 49 17 66
102 units
TOTALS I 49 17 66 I
Source: 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS.
Parks / Recreation - The project proposes an increase in population of 308 within the area and would
result in an impact upon the quality and quantity of existing recreationalopportunities and create a
need for new parks or recreational facilities. As indicated in Table "4", the park land requirements
for the proposed project is calculated based on the North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District
Standards of 3.0 acres per 1,000 population. Total park acreage estimated for the project is .93 acres.
TABLE 4
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 7
Park Need - Proposed Project
Type of DWELLING PARK PARK ACREAGE
Dwelling UNITS FACTOR NEEDED
Unit
Single Family 102
TOTAL: 102
.0091 *
.93 *
.93
Source: 1990 Federal Census; City of Bakersfield Planning Department.
Based on North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District standard of 3.0 acres of park land for each
1,000 residents.
Solid Waste / Disposal - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or
substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The development will not breach
published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control.
Facility Maintenance- Street or other public facility improvements from the proposed development
and eventual buildup of the area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City
of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant.
Utilities
Water - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or
substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be
required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility companies
have been contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant
for receiving their service.
Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the existingwastewater utilities in the area. Expansion of all wastewater utilities
would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. The
proposed project will not require the extension of any sewer trunk line that will serve new
development. All utility companies have been contacted regarding the proposal and may require
additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
Storm Drainage - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems in the area. Expansion of all storm drain
utilitieswould be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All
utility companies have been contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation
from the applicant for receiving their service.
Natural Gas - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area. Expansion of all natural gas utilities would
be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility
companies have been contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 8
the applicant for receiving their service.
Electricity - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area. Expansion of all electric utilities would be
required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility companies
have been contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant
for receiving their service.
Communications - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area. Expansion of all
communication systems would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered
significant. All utility companies have been contacted regarding the proposal and may require
additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
Pooulation / Employment/Housimt
The proposed project includes single family homes on 14.1 net acres, with the potential for a
maximum of 102 dwelling units. This site could support 308 people (see Table "5"). The proposed
project will not induce a substantial concentration or displacement of people, or significantly alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area, or affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing.
TABLE $
Population~mployment Projections
PROPOSED DWELLING PERSON PER POPULATION
LAND USE UNITS HOUSEHOLD
Single Family 102 d.u. 3.02 pphh 308 pop.
Residential
TOTAL I 102 units I --- I 308 pop.
S~uvees:Gruen~GruenandAss~ciat~s~Ernp~ymentDensities~vTyl~fW~rkplace~July~985. 1990 Federal Census and City
of Bakersfield Planning Department, May 1992.
Health
Hazards / Public Safety
No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as
a result of the proposed development. The proposal does not involve a risk of explosions or releasing
hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions. The project will not attract people to an area and expose them
to hazards found there, nor will the project interfere with emergency response plans or emergency
evacuation plans. The project is not on the most current hazardous wastes and substances site list
pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 9
Noise
The proposed residential development will be exposed to noise levels exceeding a CNEL level of 65
decibels along the northerly and westerly project boundaries due to projected vehicle traffic levels on
Brimhall Road and the future realignment and extension of Calloway Drive. Based on an analysis
of a similar type and capacity of roadway in the area, the 65 decibel CNEL noise contour for the
future alignment of Calloway Drive would extend to 200 feet from centerline (I45 feet from outer
right-of-way line) for projected traffic levels in the year 2000*. Depending upon the ultimate
configuration and orientation of structures within any residential development on-site, residential units
could be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding CNEL 65 decibels.
The Traffic Impact Study prepared by the applicant for this project proposal projects a year 2003 base
volume of 13,219 average daily vehicle trips on Brimhall Road, the arterial route bordering the site
on the north. A comparison of this projected volume with noise contours projected for roadway
segments with similar projected volumes in Appendix C of the 2010 General Plan shows that the
projected CNEL 65 decibel contour would occur at about 78 feet from centerline, which would extend
23 feet outside the ultimate improved right-of-way width of 110 feet.
Typical development standards including building construction and setbacks, walls and landscaping
will reduce anticipated noise impacts to future project residents to less than significant levels.
Furthermore, a ten-foot wide landscaped buffer along Brimhall Road will be required as a condition
of future development project approval.
Initial Study for Calloway Specific Plan Line, City of Bakersfield Planning Department, August 1992.
Aesthetics
The urbanization of the site will alter the open space qualities of the area to a minor degree. The
proposed project is not intending any uses or development in the area that would result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will not have a substantial,
demonstrational negative affect. An additional 10-foot wide planted landscape buffer along Brimhall
Road will be a condition of residential development approval.
Lie. ht and Glare
Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities surrounding the proposed
development and anticipated vehicle traffic. Site plan review of the proposed development will
evaluate building location, material selection, lighting design, parking and signage placement to buffer
proposed light impacts from surrounding developments. Proposed uses should not cause significant
light or glare to existing or future development surrounding the site.
Natural Resources
No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the
proposed project.
Appendix I
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
Page 10
The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes,
including uses of nonrenewable energy resources, during the initial and continued phases of the
project. The project will not result in significant energy requirements or lack of energy efficiency by
amount or fuel type of a project's life cycle. The proposal will not result in significant effects on local
and regional energy supplies or on requirements for additional energy capacity or sources, nor will
the project result in significant effects on peak and base period demands for electricity and other
forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it encourage
activities which result in the wasteful or substantial use of significant amounts of fuel, water, or
energy. The project will not result in significant effects on projected transportation energy
requirements or in the project's overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or impact important examplesof the major periods
of California histmy or pre-history.
The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable or
for which the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the efforts of past projects, then current projects, and possible future projects.
The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Reference List
2.
3.
4.
5.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern
COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990.
Metropolitan BakersfieM 2010 General Plan DE1R, The Planning Center, July, 1989.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern,
KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation lYan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Adviso.rv Notice to Developers, Interim kit fox
mitigation. September 1987.
Append~ I
GPA1-94, Segment IV
Page ll
7.
8.
9.
10.
Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Biological Assessment, Proposed Calloway Drive Specific Plan, The Planning Center, August 1992.
Initial Study for Calloway Specific Platt Line, City of Bakersfield Planning Department, August 1992.
Traffic Itnpact Stud. v for Cotnmercial to Residential GPA and Zone Change at Southwest Comer of
Brimhall Road and Gandola Drive, Martin-Mcintosh, December 1993.
General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment IV
Zone Change No, 5543
Recommended Mitigation Measures
In order to mitigate the impacts of any natural to urban land conversion on the San Joaquin kit fox
(a State and Federally-listed Endangered Species), the applicant must, prior to ground disturbance,
follow the Adviso~ Notice, detailing the Interim Mitigation Measures established for the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. (Mitigation)
Prior to approval of land division or development proposal, an archaeological survey must be
completed. Any mitigation resulting from the report shall be implemented prior to recordation of
the land division map or development proposal approval. (Mitigation)
p:194s4.ai
GPA 1-94, Segment IV
ZC 5543
labels\194s4.nl
F. Fabbri, Parks
Planning
J. Ledoux, Recreation
Planning
Dennis Fidler, Building
Planning
Henry Pacheco, Fire
Planning
Mike Kelly, Fire
Planning
Steve Bruinmet, Police Chief
Planning
Ted Wright, Public Works
Planning
Steve Walker, Traffic - PW
Planning
M. Leal, Streets
Planning
Joe Turner, Waste Water
Planning
Gene Bogart, Sanitation
Planning
Mike Sides, Sanitation
Planning
North Bakersfield Park &
Recreation District
405 Galaxy Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Kern County Planning & Development
Services
2700 "M" Street, Suite 100
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Archaeology Inventory
CSUB
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93311-1099
Joe O'Bannon
San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
2700 "M" Street, #275
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Golden Empire Transit
1830 Golden State Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dr. Carl Olson
Fruitvale School District
2114 Calloway Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93312
Kern High School District
Attention: Dennis Scott
2000 - 24th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Southern Calif. Gas Co.
1510 North Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93308
P.G.&E.
Attention: Gerard Rodriguez
1918 "H" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Pacific Bell
2120 "L" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Cox Cable
820 - 22nd Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Warner Cable
3600 N. Sillect Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93312
Caltrans
Attention: RandyTreece
1352W. O~ve
Fresno, CA 93728
c - 3'30t
/14/94 Page~
c,d PUBLIC HE)k-RINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT
IIL KERN RIVER. PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94, BRECKINRIDGE HILLS
Staff report was given.
Responding to question by Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said a zone
change would be premature ect at this time. The property owners of
the resource mineral portion req~ change. Mr. Hardisty responded a
better description would be provided the areas being
requested for urbanization. Commissioner possibly some control is
being lost due to OS designations of strips used 'aage ravines. Regarding
the upper portion of Section 29, the resource nation,
Commissioner Rosenlieb asked if the plan is being made nsistent with itself
by leaving the designation when it is not large enough to the
requirements of the designation. Mr. Hardisty said staff would on the
parcel size for this site.
Commissioner Delgado asked for a list of parcel owners consenting to the
changes for these amendments.
This item was continued to the Thursday meeting of March 17, 1994.
3.4
a&b
PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT
IV AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5543
Staff report was given.
Mr. Hardisty pointed out a sliver of land between existing and proposed Brimhall
Road, stating he proposed that the zone change not be effective on the northerly
portion so that it will be cleaner.
Commissioner Marino stated he would abstain from voting on this item at the
Thursday hearing.
Responding to question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said a
response memo from Public Works with regard to the traffic study is included in
the staff report.
This item was continued to the Thursday meeting of March 17, 1994.
Minutes, PC, 3/17/94
Page 13
to
5.4/2.6 on
including
the first
following roll
was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by
resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report,
tpproving the requested Breckinridge
> code 5.5, 5.5/2.1, 5.5/2.4, 5.5/2.6, 5.4,
acres, subject to conditions
17, 1994 memo from Public Works
recommend same to City
the
5.4/2.4 and
in Exhibit "A",
changes as noted in
carried by the
AYES: Cc fissioners Andrew,
Powers
Hersh, Marino, Messner,
NOES: None
Motion was made by
to adopt resolution making
Negative Declaration and
Space), R-1 (One Famil,
Section 20, T.29S., R.29E.
in Exhibit "A", includin
the first motion, and
with respect to
carried by the
the Planning
and recommend same
roll call vote:
seconded by Commissioner Andrew
forth in staff report. approving the
aested zone change to OS (Open
Neighborhood Commercial) only in
t to conditions and mitigation listed
with changes as noted in
March 14, 1994 memo
' Council. Motion
AYES:
Commissioners Andrew, Delgado,
Rosenlieb, Powers
Marino, Messnet,
None
Ch~ an lowers asked for copies of response to Mr. Nickel's letter to be sent to
4.4
a&b
PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT
IV AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5543
Commissioner Marino stated he would abstain from voting on this item.
Staff report recommending approval was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened: no one spoke in opposition.
Minutes, PC, 3/17/94
Page 14
Steve Wilson stated he was a property owner within this area. He expressed
support for this request, stating it is his desire that this property remain low
density single family if this application is approved. He expressed concern over
traffic problem on Brimhall Road. He felt improvement of Brimhall Road
between Coffee and Calloway should take place before further issuance of
building permits.
Brad Henderson stated he is a property owner east of subject property. He said
he is in favor of this down-zoning.
Roger Mcintosh represented the property owner. He stated his agreement with
recommendation and additional memos.
Regarding the issue of Coffee and Brimhall, Commissioner Rosenlieb felt the
problem was that Brimhall was designated a collector instead of an arterial.
Responding to question by her, Mr. LaRochelie explained the timetable for the
grade separation and how it would relieve traffic.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner
Messnet to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report
approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested LR (Low
Density Residential) land use designation, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit
"A", and recommend same to City Council, with the following changes:
Inclusion of Memo dated March 17, 1994 related to fire flow from the Planning
Department.
Inclusion of the March 17, 1994 memo from the Planning Department relating to
the realignment of Brimhall Road.
Inclusion of Memo dated March 11, 1994 from the Planning Department relating
to school fees.
Inclusion of March 4, 1994 memo from the Public Works Department.
Inclusion of the March 14, 1994 memo from the Planning Department relating to
deletion of Condition #2.
Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 15
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Messner,
Rosenlieb, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Slocumb
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner
Messnet to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving
the Negative Declaration and approving the requested R-1 (One Family
Dwelling) zone, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A", and recommend same
to the City Council, with the changes as outlined in the previous motion. Motion
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Andrew, Delgado, Hersh, Messner,
Rosenlieb, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Slocumb
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino
4.5
a&b
5.3
PUBLI'~I~ARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94
CONSIS~NCY' ~5~ll~ll~[~lell~a! ~ ~l 1'315 ACRES
DE~LOPMENT L~ I ~ ~g~tlll I l
~D EAST OF MT. V~.NON A~NUE.
GENERAL PLAN CC
FOR INDUSTR~ DEVELOPMEi
ROU~ 58 FREEWAY ~D
Mr. Hardisty said a req
this item to April 7. 1994.
have had discussion and
to discuss workin
matter.
58 FREEWAY
OF 27.5 ACRES
OF STATE
VERNON AVENUE
Works'v~ubmitted for continuance of
tatives of the sc']~ district and the applicant
scheduled a meeting for tt .. ollowing Wednesday
~y are in agreement wit once on this
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planrang
Commission of the City of Bakersfield. The hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the
matter may be heard on MONDAY, March 14, 1994, in the Council Chambers, City Hall. The Monday
portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or deny this project will be
taken on Monday. The hearing will be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, March 17, 1994, in the Council Chambers of City
Hall 1501 Truxtan Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 93301, to consider the following request:
'l'ne pro~e~t to be considered: General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment IV. Changing the land
use designation from GC (General Commercial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 15 acres.
Zone Change No. 5543 changing the zoning district from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-
2 (Regional Commercial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 15 acres.
2. Proj~el iocatio~: Southeast corner of Brimhall Road and Calloway Drive.
3. The name and addFass of the pFoject applicant:
Martin-Mcintosh for Castle & Cooke Der. Co.
2001 Wheelan Court
Bakersfield, CA 93309
NOTICE IS AI.~O HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at the same time and place
by the Planning Commit. sion to receive input from the public on the potential elfect of this project on the
environment. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial Study has been
prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impact of the proposed project. This study has
shown that the proposal (as mitigated) will not have a significant effect on the environment: therefore, a
Negative Declaration is proposed. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are on
file and available to the public through the Planning Department (contact Mike McCabe) in the
Development Services buildlag at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (805) 326-
3733.
PUBLIC COMMENT regarding the proposed project and/or adequa~ of the Negative
Declaration, including requests for additional environmental review. will be accepted in writing on or
before the hearing date indicated above at the Plannin~ Deoartment. If you challenge the action taken on
this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Bakersfield prior to the close of the hearing.
DATED: February 4, 1994
POSTED: February 4, 1994
MJM:pjt
p: 194s4.nph
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
County of Kern )
CAROL WILLIAMS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of
the City of Bakersfield; and that on the 6th day of June, 1994 she
posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and correct
copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3593, passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 1st day of June,
1994, and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP 102-
32 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 14 +/- ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BRIMHALL ROAD AND CALLOWAY DRIVE FROM C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND C-2 (REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING, 6,000
SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ZONE
/s/ CAROL WILLIAMS
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
DEPUTY City Clerk~
ORIGINAL.