Loading...
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.