HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3704OPd)INANCE NO. 3 7 0 4
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF
THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING
MAP 123-21 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 36.53
ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HARRIS
ROAD, EAST OF SPRING CREEK LOOP AND WEST OF
THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL FROM A PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY
DWELLING) ZONE ON 23.62 -+ ACRES AND AN R-2
(LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE ON
12.91 ACRES.
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 north of Harris Road, east of Spring Creek
Loop and west of the Arvin-Edison Canal; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 87-95 on December 21, 1995, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of
the Municipal Code to approve zone change of the subject property from a PUD
(Planned Unit Development) zone on 36.53 acres to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone
on 23.62 acres and an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on 12.91 acres as
delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 123-21 marked Exhibit "A", by this Council and
this Council has fully considered the recommendations 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 a PUD
(Planned Unit Development) zone on 36.53 acres to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone
on 23.62 acres and an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on 12.91 acres 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 was advertised and posted on
November 15, 1995, in accordance with CEQA: and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the
following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given.
2. The provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have been followed.
3. The proposed zone change is consistent with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
4. Based on an Initial Study, staff determined the proposed project will
not significantly effect the physical environment in the area and issuing a Negative
Declaration is adequate.
5. Conditions of approval attached to the project as Exhibit "C" are
included in the project to provide mitigation for potential project-related traffic and
school impacts.
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
correct.
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and
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. 123-21 marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are
more specifically described in attached Exhibit "B".
4. Such zone change is hereby made subject to the conditions of
approval listed in attached Exhibit "C".
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
ORtGI~,~AL
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
F£B 0 7 1~ , by the following vote:
/ffES: COUNCILMEMBER DoMOND, CARSON, SMITH, McOERMOTr, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
I~)ES: COUNCILMEMBER /',/'ting.
/[BSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER .~ 0 F/~
kBSENT: COUNCILMEMBER tOO'n/
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
FEB 0 ? 1~8
APPROVED
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
CITY ATTORNEY
CARL HERNANDEZ
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DR:pit
January 9, 1996
res\o0050zc.cc
3
EXHIBIT "B"
Zone Change No. P95-0050
(from PUD to R-I)
LEGAL DESCRIFHON
BEING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SEC'FION 21, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH,
RANOE 27 EAST, M.D.M., CITY OF BAKERSFI~I.D, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HARRIS ROAD AND SPRING
CREEK LOOP AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 5756 - UNIT "A" AS FILED IN MAP BOOK 40 AT
PAOES 99 THROUGH 101 (INCLUSIVE) IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUN'I~ R.ECORDER;
THENCE NORTH 30* 40' 00" EAST, ALONO THE CENTERI.INE OF SPRINO CREEK LOOP,
65.00 FEET; TI-IFaNCE SOUTH 59° 20' 00" EAST, AT RIOHT ANOLES TO SAID C~,
38.00 ~'m'_;f TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEII~G A POINT ON
THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SPRING CRgg. K LOOP AS SHOWN ON SAID
TRACT; THI~CE ALONG SAID EA~'I'FA~Y RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SPRING C'Rg:~K LOOP,
THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1) NORTH 30° 40' 00" EAST, 85.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE,
CONCAV~ WF.~'TERLY, HAVlNO A RADIUS OF 1038.00 FEET, THENCE
2) NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CLrRVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 72° 10'
15", AN AKC I.I~IOTH OF 1307.48 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOURLY BOLrNDARY
~ OF TRACT NO. 5649 AS FILED IN MAP BOOK 40 AT PAGES 192 THROUGH 194
(INCLUSIVE), IN THE OPP'ICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER; THEnCE ALONG THE
SOUTI{E4~'fF_ALLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5649, THE FOLLOWINO TWO 6'2)
COURSES:
1) NORTH 45° 27' 4Y' EAST, 265.47 FEET; TIlENeE
2) NORTH 33° 54' 49" EAST, 370.09 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE, CONCAVE SO~Y, HAVING A RADIUS 650.00 FEET, FROM WHICH
POINT A RADIAL ~ BEARS SOLrI~ 34° 30' 38" WEST, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON
WESfmO3.,Y RIOHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL; THENCE ALONG TIiE
WESTERLY LINE OF TI{E ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1) SOLPII-IEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 31" 41' 50", AN ARC LENGTH OF 359.59 FEET; THENCE
2) SOLPrH 23° 47' 32" EAST, 99.59 FEET; ~CE SOUTH 66° 28' 54" WEST, 197.11
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23° 31' 06" EAST. 336.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66° 28' 54" EAST,
293.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE ARVIN-EDISON
CANAL; THENCE SOUTH 23° 47' 32" EAST, ALONO SAID WESi'/eA~,LY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
520.02 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID WESTERLy LINE, SOUTH 66° 28' 54" WEST,
307.48 FI~I:T; THENCE SOU"ItI 08° 26' 52" WEST, 565.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70° 06' 45"
WEST, 236.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18° 44' 34" WEST, 100.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26"
30' 58" WEST, 60.53 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1240.00 FEET, FROM WHICH POINT A RADIAL
LINE BEARS NORTH 19° 07' 16" EAST; '1tIENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE,
EXHIBIT "B" (continued)
Legal Description
Zone Change No. P95-0050
(from PUD to R-I)
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANOLE OF 00° 41' 35", AN ARC LENOTH OF 15.00 Ft/I=T; THENCE
SOUTH 19° 48' 51" WEST, 118.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF HARRIS ROAD, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT
CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVINO A RADIUS OF 1355.00 FEET, FROM WHICH
POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 19' 24' 45" EAST; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY
RIOITr-OF-WAY LINE OF HARRIS ROAD, THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1) NORTHWE~-I'P. RLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANOLE OF 11° 15' 15", AN ARC LENGTH OF 266.15 FEET; THENCE
2) NORTH 59' 20' 00" WEST, 87.02 FEET; THENCE
3) NORTH 14° 20' 00" WEST, 28.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 2.3.62 ACRF_,S.
EXHIBIT "B" (continued)
Zone Change No. P95-0050
(from PUD to R-2)
LEGAL DESCR~PiiON
BEINO ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 30 SOLrrH,
RANGE 27 EAST, M.D.M., crrY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF
CA!.n~ORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSEcrlON OF HARRIS ROAD AND SPRING
CI~I~I~K LOOP AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO..5756 - UNIT "A" AS FII .I~D IN MAP BOOK 40 AT
PAGES 99 THROUGH 101 (INCLUSIVE) IN TH~ OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER;
THENCE NORTH 30° 40' 00" EAST, ALONG THE CENTER! INE OF SPRING CR~'.~:K LOOP,
65.00 FEET; THI~CE SOUTH 59° 20' 00" EAST, AT RIGHT ANOLES TO SAID CENTERLINE,
38.00 v~.~:r TO A POINT ON THE EA~-rP, RLY RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ OF SPRING CRIql~ LOOP
AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACt; THENCE SOUTH 14° 20' 00' EAST, 28.28 l~'P_.~;r TO A POINT ON
THE NORTHERLY RIOHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HARRIS ROAD; THENCE ALONO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HARRIS ROAD, THE FOLLOWINO FIVE (5)
1) SOUTH 59° 20' 00' EAST, 87.02 FEET TO THE BEOINNINO
OF A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTItF_.AS'~RLY, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 1355.00; THI~CE
2) 8OUTHEA~-rP. RLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, 'rH~OUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 11 ° 15' 15% AN ARC LENGTH OF 26~.15 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEOINNINO; THENCE
3) CONTLNUING SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH
A CENTRAL ANOLE OF 18° 27' 01% AN ARC LENOTH OF 436.33 FEET; THENCE
4) SOUTH 89° 02' 16" EAST, 645.80 FEET; THENCE
5) NORTH 45° 53~ 03" EAST, 42.73 FEET TO A POINT ON TH~ V~..ST~Y RIOHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL; THENCE NORTH 23° 47' 32" WEST, ALONO
SAID WE~-rP. gLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 1000.28 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID
WE~-i'ERLY LINE, SOUTH 66° 28' 54" WEST, 30?.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 08° 26' 52" WEs'r,
565.62 lq~-r; THENCE NORTH 70° 06' 45" WEST, 236.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18° 44' 34"
WEST, 100.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26° 30' 58" WEST, 60.5:3 FEET TO THE BEGINNINO OF
A NON-TANOENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVINO A RADIUS OF 1240.00
1,~1', FROM WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 19° 07' 16" EAST; THENCE
NOR'ITIWESTERLY, ALONO SAID CURVE, TItROUOH A CENTRAL ANOLE OF 00° 41' 35",
AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19° 48' 51" WEST, 118.32 FEET TO ~
TRUE POINT OF BEOINNING.
CONTAININO 12.91 ACRES. ~
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ZONING MAP 123-21
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Note I Devstooer ts already paying aft local share in traffic signal cost, only share
of add~ional lanes assessed heretn.
Nots 2 Costs basecl upon staff estimates for lane additions shown. In some cases
rev~w and use Some locations reau~re relocaaon of curt~, gutter &
sidewallk wi~lctl cost Is Included. No R/VV costs InCluded.
WB, The second lane is wit~ item 39
Conditions of Approval
Zone Change P95-0050
Page 2
2. School Mitigation:
"Prior to issuance of a building permit for any residence in excess of 191
within the project area, the Kern High School District and Lakeside Union
School District must be paid the amount of $3.80 per square foot of
assessable space (as defined in Section 65995 of the Government Code) for
each such 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. Payment will not be required to a district which
has certified in writing that alternative mitigation measures have been
undertaken with respect to the project to adequately address school
overcrowding."
NOTICE OF PUBL,C HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIV~ oECLARATION
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing accepting tcstimonv will be held before the Planning 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. DECEMBER 18, 1995, in the ('punoil Chambers. ('itv llall. The Monday portion will be for presentation of
staff testimony onlv. No action to approve or deny this project will be taken on Monday. 1-he hearing will be continued to
take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m.. or as soon therealter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, DECEMBER
21, 1995, in the Council Chambers of City Itall. 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, to consider the
following request:
I. The projects to be considered:
A zone change IZone Change No. P95-0050) from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone to an R-1 (One
Family Dwelling) zone on 23.62 -- acres and an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on 12.91 ± acres,
on a total of 36.53 -.+ acres.
Revised Vesting I'entative Fract Map 5673 (phased) consisting of 99 lots on 23.62 acres for single family purposes,
I lot on 12.91 acres {or multiple family purposes, currently zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development), proposed to
be rezoned to R-I (One Family Dwelling) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) (ZC # P95-0050), and 1
sump lot on 2.27 acres zoned R-1. AppLicant is also requesting a modification to reduce the minimum lot deplth
from 100 feet to 95 feet on three lots: and a request for waiver of mineral owner signatures pursuant to Section
16.20.060 B.
Project location: Generally located north of Harris Road, east of Spring Creek Loop and west of the Arvin-
Edison Canal.
3. The name and address of the project
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Martin-Mcintosh
2001 Wheelan Court
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Castle & Cooke Homes, Inc.
10000 Ming Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at the same time and place by the Platoting
Commission to receive input from the public on the potential effect of this project on the environment. Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), an Initial Study has been prepared. describing the degree of possible
environmental impact of the proposed project. I'his 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 Days
Relzer or Jennie Eng) in the Development Services building at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by le[ephoning the department at
(805) 326-3733.
PUBLIC COMMENT regarding the proposed project and/or adequacy 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 Plannine Dcl~artment. 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 ol Bakersfield prior to the
close of the hearing.
I)ATED: November 15. 1995
POSTED: November 15, 1995
1) R:pjt
p:0050.nph
Planning Director
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
SDNE CANAL ~,
P.U.D.
ZONE CHANGE
P95-0050
t4-2
~--'iI~'RRA
R-1
R-1
R-1
SUMP
R-1
;P.U.D. TO:
400
I
R-1
SILVER CREEK
PARK
P.U.D.
,',TO 'R-2:
RIO DE JANEIRO
AVEtlUE
CARACAS
~2
~ ~-.-?J- R-1 HARRIS RD.
i~u-,, ,z~L /<~/ "' \'t \
U
D
~17 /V E
SOUTHERN PACIFIC R,,41LROAD
P.U.D.
REVISED VESTING
TRACT
5673
M-2
M--2
R-1
'~ ~IERRA
R-1
o ,~00
R-1
R-1
SILVER CREEK
PARK
P.U.D.:
(zc Pg5-ooso,
iP.U.D. TO R-1
M-1
:P.U...D:i
Pg5-o050
TO R-2)~
RIO DE JANEIRO
AVENUE
22
HARRIS RD.
G[NERAL NOTES:
ro
REVISED VESTING TENTATI~,,_ TRACT NO. 5673
32
m , ~ ~I~INI(~ I"~ACT NC). ~7311
Project No. -i~,...Ac~-/~[&e ~'7~! I::~_J~)
I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EFFECT
EARTH Soit$
Geo~ic Hazams
Top~rapRy
Air ~i~
TrafficlCirc~
P~i~
CUL~R~ RE~URCES
S = Significant
MITIGATION I EEFECT
(NOTE: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ABOVE iMPACTS iS ATi'ACHED.)
Patef~eJIv Significant I = insignificant/No Effect Y = Ye~ N = No ORD = Ordinance
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Y N
Does ;he prolect Ilave me potwnaaJ t~ ae~r-*'*e ;he qumiN ~ ~e e~ronmem, subs~ly r~uce ~e ~i~ ~ a fish
or wddli~ sD~l~. c~ a fish ~ w[idli~ ~ui~ ~ drop ~1~
Does ;he prolect have e~nronm~ effects wfiich will cause euDste~tiaJ eciveme efl~cts on human Dein~js, el;her directly
Project No.
III.
FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION
(Proleers where a Negative Declaration or EIR has not been previously prepared, or where a previous document will not
be utilized.)
ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION (check one):
It has been found that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment: therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has 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 incorporated
into the project; therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has been found that the proposed project MAY have a si~niflcant effect on the environment,
and an EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) will be prepared.
PREPARED BY:
t~fd
DATE:
APPENDIX I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting Tentative Map 5673 (Phased)
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
Soils - Construction of the proposed project will result in 36.53 -+ acres of 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.
These soils are not considered "prime" for agricultural purposes by the State Department of
Conservation. 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 generally level land, which is not considered a
unique geologic or physical feature. The site is currently undeveloped. 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 thc 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 - No rivers, streams, or beaches are near the project site to be impacted by
the proposed development. The two canals (the Stine Canal and the Arvin-Edison Canal) adjacent
to the site will not be impacted by the project. 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 ol 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.
Wa~r
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, substantiatlyinterferewith groundwater recharge or substantiallydegradewater quality. Water
service would be provided for the development by the City of Bakersfield Water District: however,
the cumulative impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant.
Appendix I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting TM 5673 (Phased)
Page 2
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 or streams. The site is adjacent to portions of two canals (the Stine Canal and the
Arvin-Edison Canal). The proposal will not result in changes in currents or the course or direction
of surface water movements.
Floodin~/Draina~,e - 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 impact, any rivers or streams. As previously mentioned, the site is adjacent to two canals
and is not expected to impact them. The site is not in an area subject to flooding, therefore the
proposal will not expose people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.
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.
Air
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 daily volume of vehicles produced by the
proposed land uses on-site. 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 qualityviolation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations.
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/proposed as a result of the proposed project do not appear to have the
potential to create objectionable odors.
Biological Resources
Plants - The 36.53 -+ acre project site proposed for residential development is currently vacant,
undeveloped, generally flat land with native grass cover. 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. Although existing
species of plants on-site would be removed through urban development, 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 - Existing animal species using the proposed project site consist of small rodents such as mice
:red ground squirrels native to the area. New animal species. such ~ts 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
Appendix I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting TM 5673 (Phased)
Page 3
not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or substantially diminish or significantly reduce wildlife
habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant.
Rare/Endangered Sl~ecies - Permits and approvals for development associated with this project will
be subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated
10(a)(l)(B) and 2081 permits issued to the City by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State
Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for development
projects to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens and notify agencies prior to
grading. The Metropolitan Bakersfield ttabitat Conservation Plan may be reviewed at the following
location: City of Bakersfield, Planning Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield~
CA, 93301, (805) 326-3733.
Habitat Alteration - Urban development may alter the area's habitat by introducing domesticated or
fcral species of animals into the area. The project may result in the creation of a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals from the surrounding open/urban land. 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 tbr the project proposed.
Transportation
Traffic/Circulation - The proposed project may generate additionalvehicular movement. 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 not 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. All regional traffic
impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated according to the regional traffic impact fee
ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits.
Parking - Existing parking facilities will not be affected, as any demand for new parking from the
proposed residential development will be reduced to less than significant through parking ordinance
requirements.
Traffic 1tazards - 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.
Cnltural Resources
Archaeoloeical/Itistorical- It is not known if archaeological or historical resources are located on the
site. This Initial Study will be transmitted to the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) housed
at California State University Bakersfield for their review, comments and recommendations. All
measures indicated by the A1C will be completed prior to any ground disturbance.
Appendix I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting TM 5673 (Phased)
Page 4
Land Use
Comoatibilitv - The proposed project will include residential (single/multiple family) types of land
uses. The existing land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site include those which are
indicated in the following table. 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.
Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties
LOCATION
NORTH
SOUTH
EAST
2010 ZONING EXISTING
DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE
LR PUD Single family subdivision
LR R-1
P & LI R-l, M-2 & M-1
WEST LR R-1
(under construction)
Vacant/undeveloped
Sump, Stine Canal &
Arvin-Edison Canal,
with vacant/undeveloped
beyond.
Single family subdivision
(under construction)
General Plan/Zonin~ - The present land use designation on the site is LR (Low Density Residential)
and ttMR (High Medium Density Residential), with existing zoning of PUD (Planned Unit
Development). The proposal will change the zoning of the site to R-I (One Family Dwelling) zone
and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone. This change will not result in a substantial
alterationof the present or planned land use of the area, due to its existing designation for residential
uses. 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 does not contain
prime agricultural soils. Removal of 36.53 -+ acres of land through the proposed project will not
convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of
adjacent prime agricultural land.
Public Services
IDolice - Police protectkin for the area is curreally provided by the City of Bakersfield. Police
protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Pol!cc Department upon project buildout. Current City
Police service slandards require !.32 ~ffficcrs for each 1,000 people in the citv. Projected increase of
616 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of 0.81 additional law enforcement
officers to maintain current levels of service. tlowever, this potential increase in services can be paid
for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
Append~ I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting TM5673 (Phased)
Page 5
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 616 new residents and 228
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 residential land uses could produce 228 housing units and could
generate approximately 133 school-age children ((trade K-8:98 pupils and Grades 9-12:35 pupils).
This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. Existing school impact
fees and increased property 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.
Parks / Recreation - The project proposes an increase in population of 616 persons, within the area
and would result in an impact upon the quality and/nr quantity of existing recreational opportunities
and create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The park land requirements for the
proposed project has been met in accordance with City Agreement No. 92-70.
Solid Waste / Disl~osal - qlae 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. Utility companies
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. Utility companies may require additionnl 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
utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
Utility companies may require additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
Natural Gas - The proposed development would hot 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. Utility companies
may require additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
Appendix I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting 'I'M 5673 (Phased)
Page 6
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. Utility companies
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. Utility companies may require additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their
service.
Population / Employment / Housimz
The proposed project based on the applicant's estimates, includes 99 single family dwelling units (R-1
zoning) on 23.62 -+ acres and 129 limited multiple family dwelling units (R-2 zoning) on 12.91 -+
acres, with the potential for a maximum of 228 dwelling units. This site could support 616 people.
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.
The proposal may impact, in a beneficial way, the temporary. and permanent income distribution,
employment and/or tax revenues of the City of Bakersfield or County of Kern. The project will not,
however, result in significant reduced employment opportunities for low and moderate income socio-
ecoffomic groups or impact the social affiliation or interaction of the neighborhood. There will not
be a significant impact on the privacy of surrounding areas.
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.
Noise
Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Typical
development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will prevent substantial
increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining area, will not expose people to severe noise
levels. and would reduce noise impacts to less lhan significant.
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 ~tevelopment 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.
Appendix I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting ]M 5673 (Phased)
Page 7
Lisht 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.
No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the
proposed project.
The proposed residential 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 requirementsor 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 examples of the major periods
of California history 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.
Appendix I
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting TM 5673 (Phased)
Page 8
Reference List
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plun and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern
COG, Golden Empire Transit, Mamh 1990.
Metropolitan BakersfieM 2010 General Plun DEIR, The Planning Center, July, 1989.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Generul Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern,
KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, t989.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield ttabitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Adviso~ Notice to Developers, 10(a)(l )(B) and 2081
permits, 1994.
litle 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
I~tle 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
EXHIBIT "A"
Zone Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting Tentative Map 5673 (Phased)
Traffic Mitigation:
The project shall be required to pay its proportionate share of traffic mitigation fees based upon an
assessment of the original and updated Silvercreek Traffic Impact studies. Proportionate shares shall
be assessed on a per unit basis for the actual number of units developed as shown on the attached
table.
p:0050.ai
~me Change No. P95-0050
Revised Vesting fentative Map 5673 (Phased
Intersecaon / Mitigation
1 White Lane at Buena Vista Road (See Note 1 )
Install Traffic Signal, Add WL, NT. SL lanes
4 !White Lane at Ashe Road
I Add EL, WL, SL NL, NT & ST lanes
5 White Lane at Stine Road
Add EL, WE SL, NL, NT & ST lanes
6 White Lane at Wible Road
Install Traffic Signal, Add WL. NT, SL lanes
9 District Blvd at 8tine Road
Add EL, ET, WT, NT & ST lanes
11 Pacheco Road at Old River Road
In~la# raghal. Add EL, WL. NL, SL, ER, WR. NR, SR, ET. WT
12 Peche~o Road at Gos~rd Road
Ina~all signal. Add ET, NT, NL, ST, SL
13 Hams Road at C~)~ford Road
install s~nal. Add NT, ST
14 Hams Read at Ashe Road
Install Traffic Signal
15 Harris Road at StJna Reed
install Traffic Signal.
16 Panama Lena at Buena Vista Road
Install Traffic Signal.
17 Panama Lena at Old River Road
Irma# elgnal. ~ EL.ET, ER, WL. WT, WE. NL NR, SL, NR
18 Panama Lena at Goaford Read
Install Traffic Sigeal.
19 Panama I ~ at Reliance Read
20 Panama I ~na at Ashe Read
21 Panama Lane at Sfina Road
23 Panama Lane at Wible Road
Add ER, WR lanes
24 Panama Lane at Fwy 99 {SB Ramps)
25 Panama Lena at Fwv 99 (NB Ramos)
24A Panama Lane at Fwv 99
Widen Overcrossing (% is WT + ET share of capac incr)
27 Taft Highway at Old River Road
39 Panama Lane {Ashe Road to Stina Road)
Add ET, WT Lanes
39AA.rvin-Edison Canal Culvert on Panama Lane
Widen Culvert
228 R-1
Total Spread Residential
Improvement I Project: T 5673 & ZC
Cost P95-0050 (Combined)
Share
% i Cost
$255,000 r
$255,000 I
$155,ooo I
$2o,0oo I
$29o,ooo
0.23% I $173
0,39% I $994
0.52% $1,328
0.18% $287
1 O6% $212
0.09% $248
$255,000 0.63% $1,611
$165,(XX) 1.19% $1,958
$130.000 3.58% I $4,653
$130.0001 0.89% I $1,158
$130,000 0.26% $337
S290,(X)0 0.56% $1,634
$130,000 0.59% $773
$130.000 1.87% $2,430
$395,000 1 22% $4,821
$130,0001 1.03% $1,3.39
$10,000 0.75% $75
$130.0001 0.32% J $422
$130,0001 0.17%1 $218
$1.800,0001 0.42% I $7,528
$360,0001 0.36% ~ $1,280
$300,0001 3.08% I $9,244
$150,O001 3.08% I $4,622
$150,000 II 3.08% I $4,622
IITOTALS
Note 1 Developer is already paying all local share in traffic signal cost, only share
of additional lanes assessed herein.
Note 2 Costs based uDon staff estim~t~ fnr lane additions shown ~ ~m~ m=~
paving ~s not required and additions can be made through striping. Costs
reflect these judgements. More detailed estimates may be provided for
review and use. Some locations recluire reidcation of curb, gutter &
sidewallk which cost ~s included. No R/~/costs included.
Note 3 Added lanes on Panama for Items 19 - 21 only include the third lane EB &
WB. The second lane is with item 39
11/15/cJ5 11:14 AM Revised Siivercresk Mitigation
Except, PC Minutes, 12/21/95
Page 1
4a.
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE NO. P95-OO50/REVISED TENTATIVE
TRACT 5673 (PHASED) (Martin-Mcintosh for Castle and Cooke Homes, Inc.)
Staff report recommending approval was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Gary Giesick, 7820 Rushing River Court, said he is a resident of the area and
also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Lakeside Union School District
and stated his support for this proposal. He felt this would be more in character
with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he would only speak for himself as
a board of trustees concerning his favor for this proposal with relation to school
issues, however felt other members would also approve with relation to the
portion on Harris Road. He felt consolidating this with the portion at Panama
and Ashe Road would reduce traffic on Harris Road to Gosford Road. He asked
that this request be approved.
Brenda Turner stated she is a homeowner in Silvercreek. She felt the proposal
would be positive for the neighborhood because it would move the traffic from
streets in the Silvercreek area to main arteries of Panama and Ashe Road,
promoting safety of children. Secondly she stated this change would move multi-
family sites away from already developed sites.
Ron Bale stated he is a resident of the Silvercreek community. He felt this zone
change will be a positive change for the neighborhood.
Bruce Davis represented the applicant on this issue. He clarified they are not
requesting an increase to existing density, however are consolidating and
relocating the two multi-family zoned properties. He said they have
communicated with all Silvercreek residents describing their request and have
received only positive responses. He felt relocating the R-2/HMR land use
designation to the intersection of Panama and Ashe Road would better utilize the
arterial street pattern to improve traffic flow and ingress and egress into the
multi-family zoned property. It will also provide a land use transition between
existing commercial zoning located at the northeast corner of Panama and Ashe
and single family homes.
Except, PC Minutes, 12/21/95
Page 2
Roger Mcintosh asked with regard to conditions of approval that Condition #4 of
the December 18, 1995 memo be changed so that the following wording be added
to the end: "or as approved by the City Engineer." Mr. LaRochelie stated his
agreement with this change to condition. Mr. Mcintosh stated agreement with
remaining conditions of approval.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Skousen gave the
commission their alternatives if all applications concerning subject property are
not approved.
Mr. Mcintosh clarified the intent of their requests for subject area, saying their
next request would be to consolidate the areas in a zone change request to R-1.
The zone change request to R-2 would only be in effect for a short period of
time.
Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to
adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report and approve the
Negative Declaration and approve Zone Change No. P95-0050, subject to the
conditions of approval on Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council, with
addition of the Planning Director's memo dated December 13, 1995 and memo
from the Pnblic Works Department dated December 18, 1995. Motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Delgado
Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to
adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all
findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract 5673, and the modification as requested, subject to the conditions outlined
in Exhibit "A," incorporating the Planning Director's memo dated December 13,
1995, substituting Public Works conditions with those dated December 18, 1995,
with further modification as follows:
Condition #4, amended adding the following wording to the end:
, or as approved by the City Engineer.
Motion carried.
MNP95005
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
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 13th day of February, 1996
she posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and
correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3704, passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 7th day of
February, 1996, and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO.
123-21 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 36.53 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HARRIS ROAD, EAST
OF SPRING CREEK LOOP AND WEST OF THE ARVIN-
EDISON CANAL FROM A PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY
DWELLING) ZONE ON 23.62 ACRES AND AN R-2
(LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE ON
12.91 ACRES
By:
/s/ CAROL WILLIAMS
City Clerk of the Ci/~ of Bakersfield