The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 005-17RESOLUTION NO. 0 0 5_ 17 RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST PANAMA LANE AND FUTURE SPARKS STREET. (ZC NO. 16- 0197). WHEREAS, East Panama Lane LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department requesting on amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from R -1 (One - Family Dwelling) zone to R -2 (Limited Multi- Family Dwelling) on 14.61 acres located at the northeast corner of East Panama Lane and future Sparks Street, as shown on attached Exhibit "B," (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, December 13, 2016 at 5:15 p.m, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, Negative Declaration and the Planning Commission's deliberation, and action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 49 -16 are hereby adopted. 3. The Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures in Exhibit "A" for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein. - - -- 000 - - - -- Page 1 of 2 oFePKF9s � m 0 � a ORIGINAL I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council p�N 2t�10170ty of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on by the following vote: ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ I COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH,' SULLIVAN, PARLIER ES COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER O ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER N�j LC . f' I LL�AA PAMELA MCCARTHY, MMC INTERIM CITY CLERK and Ex Of i io Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfie d APPROVED JAN 2 5 2017 Q KAREN GOH MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Aft ey By: ANDREW HEGLUN Deputy City Attorney Exhibits: A Mitigation Measures B Location Map By: leng \ 5: \ZOneChonge \w 2016 \16 -0197\CC \CC Ord \2nd Read \Correction 2nd Read \CC Env R.,\16019] CC RE ENV.docx Page 2 of 2 o�0NKF9T > m U � ORIGINAL EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MEASURES ZONE CHANGE 16 -0197 CITY ATTORNEY In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and /or property owner and /or subdivider ( "Applicant' herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards f "City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY's sole active negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued. The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party. PLANNING Biological Impact Mitigation Measures 2. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan incidental take permit for urban development (Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. The current MBHCP urban development incidental take permit expires on September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the September expiration date. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the expiration date will be eligible to By jengl S: \Z.neCh.nge \➢r 2016\ 16 -0197\CC\ 1"197 Env Res Exh A mifigafion.docx OF0NK eq > m F v ° ORIGINAL Exhibit "A" ZC 16 -0197 Mit. Measures Page 2 of 3 pay fees under the current MBHCP incidental take permit. Early payment or pre- payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 -711). The META makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project - related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 - August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and /or loss of reproductive effort e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered "taking" and is potentially punishable by fines and /or imprisonment. a. To avoid impacts to burrowing owl, prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) by the Project applicant of a subdivision or site plan review, following the survey methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC, 1993). A copy of the survey shall also be submitted to the City of Bakersfield, Planning Division. b. If the survey results the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading; including staging, clearing, and grubbing, surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of the of the Project commencing and that the surveys be conducted in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, the CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed and a copy submitted to City of Bakersfield, Planning Division. c. If any ground disturbing activities will occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the Project footprint, implementation of avoidance measures are warranted. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant must follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 -711). If the Project o4�pKF9 T m J O ORIGINAL Exhibit "A" ZC 16 -0197 Mit. Measures Page 3 of 3 applicant proposes to evict burrowing owls that may be present, the CDFW recommends passive relocation during the non - breeding season. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 4. If during construction activities or ground disturbance, cultural resources are uncovered, the subdivider shall stop work and retain a qualified archeologist for further study. Subdivider shall notify the proper authorities and be subject to any mitigation measures required of the archeologist. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5. Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lot or parcel within this zone change area, the developer shall record an avigation easement for each the lot or parcel. The covenant must be submitted for review and approval by the City Planning Director and to the City Attorney prior to recordation. By: leng / S:V.O .Change \yr 2016 \I6 -0197\PC D. V 6 -0197 Uh A -I mifgatlon.docx o``0AxF9T > m � o ORIGINAL U 1M. e e t�F�EQ, N O p yffg W �F E £3, oFtt€ene,,E n2CC3 3�E R_R �..�FdS 8 S bg -g F_ pES ELyL J = "y9 YF8 0 „^ Y4An Ay R egA 6ES 6�JIM f fi66 £ o sFB-a�s§��s�.ss a.�>ae �I .t�Et §��a;�=m o s t F' €" F" €,. t ac.3S%�s " °e::YdsEe.<g�a'aod�: m j H I j a a m x - - x rc rc W -.. F�NiRN- PF�'NLN C✓uVdL ALN/bL - 1E06i yT �U �N q Q Y MWNSi g15tl3N9VM � � LL LL � x I � 1S SNtltldS •— d 1S NOSI01 I g � o f C f K C w I K Q lsxaunp & � uOm j � �vssvn LL � i � tlp1nMM]p18 � Avmn6envp I T ' AtlMpHVllptl � 3Atl3p163Wtl1 $ 1 � ld H3tivM � K i 19 O K • Q W'pllr5 f W ,d wvp 1 2 G S p S rc � Cx 4 d C Arml�won 62 xo133s � w a AtlM6H91YJn116 3Mn3l5tlpNpp m U cc o �I� o T�: ; U V U K U O 3AV NOINO S P, w 5 0 ORIGINAL (S) NEGATIVE DECLARATION ww..Mb �,Id,lry.v, The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following- described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfeld's CEQA Implementation Procedures. PROJECT NO. (or T91e): Zone Change 16 -0197 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: September 13, 2016 COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: October 5, 2016 MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required): Biological Impact Mitigation Measures Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan incidental take permit for urban development (Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. The current MBHCP urban development incidental take permit expires on September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the September expiration date. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP incidental take permit. Early payment or pre - payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 -711). The MBTA makes it pKP unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 oFe 19 WT m U � ORIGINAL C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21 J. Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the fake, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project - related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 - August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and /or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered "taking" and is potentially punishable by fines and /or imprisonment. a. To avoid impacts to burrowing owl, prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) by the Project applicant of a subdivision or site plan review, following the survey methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC, 1993). A copy of the survey shall also be submitted to the City of Bakersfield, Planning Division. b. If the survey results the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading; including staging, clearing, and grubbing, surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of the of the Project commencing and that the surveys be conducted in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, the CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed and a copy submitted to City of Bakersfield, Planning Division. C. If any ground disturbing activities will occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the Project footprint, implementation of avoidance measures are warranted. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant must follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 -711). If the Project applicant proposes to evict burrowing owls that may be present, the CDFW recommends passive relocation during the non - breeding season. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 3. If during construction activities or ground disturbance, cultural resources are uncovered, the subdivider shall stop work and retain a qualified archeologist for further study. Subdivider shall notify the proper authorities and be subject to any mitigation measures required of the archeologist. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4. Prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lot or parcel within this zone change area, the developer shall record an avigation easement for each the lot or parcel. o``eAxF9� � m 0 0 ORfGINAL INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Project (line d No.): Zone Change 16 -0197 2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 3. Contact Person Iname, ase, phone): Jennie Eng, Principal Planner (661) 326 - 3043 4. Project Location: Located at the northeast comer of East Panama Lane and Sparks Street. 5. Applicant (name and address): East Panama LLC, 1224 Coast Village Circle Suite 11, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 6. General Plan Designatlon: LR (Low Density Residential) 7. Zoning: R -1 (One - Family Dwelling) zone 8. Description of Project ) describe the whole actioninvolved. including bulnotlimited to laferphoses of the project, and any secondary, support, crroff -site features necessary forits implementation.): The project applicant I proposing a Zone Change on a 14.61 acre parcel from an R -1 (One - Family Dwelling) zone to R -2 (Limited Multi- Family Dwellings zone. 9. Environmental setting ( briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses): The zone change area is within the southern half of approved Tentative Tract Map 7029, approved for 129 single - family residential lots. The applicant proposes to develop 68 single - family lots on the northern half of Tentative Tract Map 7029, with one lot recorded to replace the remaining 61 single - family lots. This southern lot, currently an R -1 (one- family dwelling) zoning district, is proposed to be re -zoned to an R -2 (limited multi - family dwellings zoning district. Within the proposed R -2 zoned area, the owner has planned 44 duplex lots, with a Yield of 88 dwelling units. The difference between the 88 dwelling units and the previously approved 61 dwelling units is 27 dwelling units. A Mitigated Negative Declaration approved March 8, 2006 for the previous zone change (Zone Change 05 -1507) which included the current project area. Zone Change 05 -1507 changed the zoning from A (Agricultural) zoning to R -I zoning on 108 -88 acres, and from A zoning to C -2 )Regional Commercial) zone on 1.56 acres. This negative declaration will examine the environmental impact of an additional 27 dwelling units to the Zone Change 05- 1507 project area. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required fe.g.. permit financing approval orparticipafion agreement): gPl<f p� 9sT m v ° ORIGINAL ZONE CHANGE 16.0197 LOCATION [ , _ a s a a d a 3 1 NON0YI1 as a a i a a 3 � Q a & a . a a a u d /_ \1 VN 9 ; s 111 NOINO 3AV NOI 8 oFgAK�9N T U O ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.): ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use/ Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 1 find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated neaative declaration will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MM have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental Impact report is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project Mgt have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (l) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental Impact repod or neacMe declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental Impact report or neaalNe declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are Imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date OpKF Printed name of 9s > m V � ORIGINAL EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). 5) Eariier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated." describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats: however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. o``eAKF9�, V p ORIGINAL Environmental Issue "mIf.. rommay RpibaN uumm SIpNIIwN vnmwxROSOO Hex err ix Imoa Imoocl InwmwatlM Mpael cl I. AESTHETICS: Would the project; a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ X c) Substonfially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and Its ❑ sumoundmgsa ❑ ❑ X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day ❑ or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ X II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Colifonia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ) 1997) prepared by the California Dept, of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Famdand Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to nonagricultural ❑ use? ❑ ❑ X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, w a Williamson Act contrac }? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Cade section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Cade section 4526) or timberland zoned tmberand Production (as ❑ ❑ 13 X defined by Govemmeni Code section 51104(9)1? d) Result in Poe loss of forestland w conversion of forest land to non - forests ❑ ❑ ❑ X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non- agdculural use or conversion ❑ ❑ 13 X of forest land to non - forest used III. AIR OUALIrv: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project; a) Conflict with or bstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b) violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violafion2 11 ❑ X ❑ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant far which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quanfitafive ❑ thresholds far Ozone precursom)a 11 X d) Upose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators? ❑ ❑ ❑ X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by Me California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Ash and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the 13 ❑ x California Department of Ash and Wildlife or US Ash and Wildlife SerAce2 ❑ of Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, venal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ X means? of Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident ar migratory wildlife condom, x or impede fine use of native wildlife nursery sitesa ❑ El ❑ g PKF9 o T F m U 0 ORIGINAL Environmental Issue .,is, srarAHmH ppN=MiMNM - N M IMm IMn 1119 l 0 Z. el Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecflng biological resources, such asafree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ X ❑ fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ X ❑ V CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ X ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d) Disturb any human remains, Including those intoned outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ X ❑ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOUS: Would the project; a) Expose people or structures to parental substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Ioks injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Prolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Irefer to Division of Mines A Geology Special Publication No.42) ❑ ❑ X ❑ ii. Strong seismic ground shodng? ❑ ❑ X ❑ N. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ X ❑ iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c) Be located on geologic anti or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proleue and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral s or collapse? ex subsidence, Its Cl ❑ ❑ X dl defined in the ci ocated n Be located expansive sot, as defined in the city's most recently adapted Uniform e, Building s Code, creating risks to life a Cl ❑ ❑ X e) Have swaincapable of adequately he use of supporting Me use of septic tanks or alternative stems he waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ X VII, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project, a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or Indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable plan, polity or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Vlll, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matera6, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed School? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ X ❑ ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Ell Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X o``0AKF9m � o ORIGINAL Environmental Issue .li rol.ondy xarxk=M uutlm sgxneau .111111 311 xe hl Expose people a smctures to a sigmncani nsK of loss, injury or seam mvomng wim land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER OVAUTY: Would the project; a) Violate anywater quality standards orwaste discharge requirement? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local grountlwater table level (e.g., the Production rote of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permit have been granted)? c) Substantially, alter the existing drainage pattern of the site a area, including through the alteration of the course of a steam or river, In a manner which would result in subearri erosion or siltation on- or off-511e? of Substantially alter the edsting drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the olferatlon of the course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-ife? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing a planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise. substantially degrade water quality? gj Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Hood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood fiows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, Including flooding as a result of fine failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? X LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project; a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable lord use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency win jurisdiction over Me project ) including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Ill. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project a) Result in the loss of avollobifity, of o known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the resident of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallytimparfant mineral resource recovery site that is delineated In a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? YJLNOISE would the projectresult in; a) Exposure of persons to a generation of noise levels In excess of standards established in the local general plan a nose ordinance, or applicable standards of otheragencies? of Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground- dome nose levels? c) A substantial permanent Increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airpod land use plan a, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a pnvate airship, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X p e,Nl > m U � ORIGINAL Environmental Issue relxwry fgrYACarN uri sixi NAF rfft an ui sIRnBtart No %III.POPUTATON AND HOUSING: Would the prolect; a) Induce substanflal population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes & businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrostruchuni ❑ ❑ X ❑ b) Displace substanflal numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c) Displace substanflal numbers of people, necesstofing the construction of MY, PUBLIC replacement housing elsewhere? SERVICES: ❑ ❑ ❑ X a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services; I. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X I. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X iii. Schools? ❑ ❑ X ❑ iv. Parks? ❑ ❑ X ❑ v. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X %V. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical detenaafion of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities a require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ X XVI. TRANSPORTATIONRRAFFIC: Would the project a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness fa the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, sheets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ❑ ❑ X ❑ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and navel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated mods ar highways? ❑ ❑ X ❑ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in fall levels as change in location that results in substanflal safety asks? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipmeri ❑ ❑ ❑ X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ X fj Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit bicycle. or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X XVII, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project, a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c) Require or result in the construction of new stone water drainage facilites or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sgnificant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing enfifiements and resources. or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ X ❑ o``gAKF9� m � o ORIGINAL Environmental Issue '°n T°^ wlirri SIpNACpM I hin Slpilpanl WIT MMpMbn SIpNSepM Nn Impeel InedpaeXm Impecl Impp ej Result in a determination by the wastewatermortment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitmsith? ❑ El X fj Be sewed by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? O 0 X gj Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes ❑ F1 X %VIII MANDATORY a. RNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish a wildlife species, cause a flsh 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 a eliminate important ewmples of the major periods of Calfomia history or prehistory? ❑ X ❑ El b. Does the project have impact that are individually limited, but camulafively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considemble when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future X projects)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 11 X p�`0pKF9" =� > m F- U � ORIGINAL EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AESTHETICS a. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of Federal, State or Local Agencies, and is consistent with the City of Bakersfield Zoning and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan designations for the project area. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5 %. The area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or "scenic ". There is no scenic vista that will be impacted by construction of this project. No impact. b. The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to a state highway which is designated as "scenic ". No impact. c. Surrounding land uses include residential homes and agricultural fields. The development of residential homes on the project site would alter the existing landscape and provide development of additional 27 dwelling units which is considered compatible with the surrounding uses. The visual alterations will enhance the existing landscape and it is not considered to degrade the site compared to its existing condition. There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. Noimpact. d. This project involves incremental growth of urban development within the City of Bakersfield's (jurisdiction/ sphere of influence). Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime and will not produce substantial glare. City of Bakersfield development standards including Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 requires the project comply with current lighting, and signoge standards that minimize unwanted light or glare trespass to neighboring properties. Less than significant impact. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a. The project does not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Rural Land Mapping Edition, Kern County Important Farmland 2010, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. As of December 31. 2009, there were approximately 1.70 million acres under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County (The California Land Conservation Act, 2010, Status Report). The loss of less than 100 acres is not considered a significant change to this resource as it represents only 0.006% of the total amount of land under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or area wide significance. No impact. b. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract, nor is there existing zoning for agricultural use. The project site has a land use designation of LR (Low Density Residential) by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and zoned R -1 (One- Family Dwelling) by the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. The project applicant is requesting approval of a zone change to an R -2 (Limited Multi - Family Dwelling) zoning district. The proposed R -2 zone is also consistent with the (existing or proposed) land use designation. Therefore, there are no impacts to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Land Use Contracts. bNKe,9 o 8 � m U O ORIGINAL c. As discussed above, the project site(s) is /are currently zoned for residential development. No forestlands exist on the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause the rezoning of forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impacts on forestland would occur. d. The project sites and surrounding properties do not contain any forest land. No impacts resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use are expected to occur. e. The proposed project involves the construction of houses on the project site. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of land zoned for agriculture to a nonagricultural use. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impact. III. AIR DUALITY a. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts promulgated by the SJVAPCD (page 16 and Section 6) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan requirements, related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development is consistent with these listed strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quality strategies for new residential and commercial developments include but are not limited to Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, AB 1493 motor vehicle standards, compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element as well as the SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines and Rules. As a result of implementation of project design elements, compliance with local Air Pollution Control District permit requirements, any impacts are less than significant. b. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for three (3) specific criteria pollutants in regards to the operation of specific projects, as shown below: SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Air Pollutant Tons/Year Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 10 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 10 Particulates jPM10) 15 The proposed project would be in compliance with the significance thresholds for ROG (10 ions /year), NOx (10 tons /year), and PM10 115 tons /year). Additionally, the project applicant intends to comply with the air emissions control measures described in the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts document to control dust and other emissions during construction. Under SJVAPCD CEQA rules, the implementation of these control measures would help reduce impacts from criteria air pollutants to a less than significant level. The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4 -2, Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the City pAKF9 o T m U O ORIGINAL IV. Bakersfield and are regarded by SJVAPCD as sufficient mitigation to reduce PMio impacts to less than significant. c. The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the San Joaquin Valley is in non - attainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVAPCD. Under GAMAQI guidelines, any proposed project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulative significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects will exceed air quality standards; the project's cumulative impacts when considered with existing and future projects are below air quality standards. There are no individual significant adverse air quality related effects and the impact is regarded as less than significant. d. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. The SJVAPCD defines sensitive receptors as locations where there is a risk of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the ambient air quality standards (AAQSj. Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors are located approximately' /. mile away from the project site. However, the proposed project use will not expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure of any substantial pollutant concentrations. No impact. e. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This proposal is not on the list of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems (please refer to the list on page 27, table 4 -2, of the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). No impact. a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively, and Incidental Take Permit 2081- 2013 -058 -04 and associated Implementation /Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Hsh and Wildlife, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern (said documents hereby incorporated by reference). Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading in areas of known dens. With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts are considered to be less than significant. The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires in the year 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the 2019 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the 2019 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre - payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2019 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The vegetative communities found within the project site are not considered sensitive, and provide little to no value for special - status wildlife species. The project has been sited to avoid ok bAKF9m � m U O ORIGINAL impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitat types. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to sensitive wildlife species or communities. The project would not interfere with movements of any wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Native resident and /or migratory fish and known native wildlife nursery sites are not present within the project site or area. b. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area, but is within the MBHCP area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, includes ordinance requirements for all development projects in the HCP area. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant impact. c. There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not have a significant impact on any wetlands. No impact. d. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the MBHCP), or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. The record does not support a finding that the project area is a currently nursery site for native wildlife species. However, during the construction phase of the project, there is a potential for Burrowing owls, a migratory species, to utilize the project area as a project site. Should the pre - grading survey required by the MBHCP reveal the presence of Burrowing owls and their potential nesting sites, the developer will be required to avoid interference with nesting sites during the nesting season, and avoid take of the species at all times. With this mitigation measure, impacts are considered to be less than significant. e. The MBHCP has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and, therefore, will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. Less than significant impact. I. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources: see answer to IV.e. above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. There are no structures on the site and no resources are listed in or have been deemed eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Tile 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Sea.). There are no resources on or near the project site that are listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code. There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. No impact. b. A cultural resources survey IA Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Residential Project at Panama Lane and South Union Avenue, City of Bakersfield, California, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, January 2005) was analyzed for the some area with the Initial Study /Negative Declaration for ZC 16 -0197 and found no cultural resources on the site. However the study recommended that should any cultural resources be unearthed during ground disturbance activities, the developer should contact a qualified archaeologist for further study. With this mitigation measure included for the current project, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c. This project site is not located in northeast Bakersfield, the only known unique paleontological resource area within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Therefore, the potential exists for ` gAKFS, `T m 0 IRIGINAL significant paleontological resources to be disturbed during on -site construction activities. Pursuant to the mitigation measure contained in the Negative Declaration In the event any undetected (i.e., buried) cultural resources are encountered on the project site, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find in conformance with CEQA Section 15064.5.) Topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No impact. g. The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, if human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, further work shall stop until Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code is met. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native American remains. Less than significant impact. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS aJ. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge -Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In addition, because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard. Less than significant impact. a.U. See answer to Via.!. aJH. Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high ground water combined with high potential seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to VI.a.i. aJv. See answer to VI.a.i. b. The soil types prevalent on the project site are listed in the Soff Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September 1988) [If south of Taft Hwy, will need to look at Southwestern Survey]. Based on the soil survey, the project site includes soil type Kimberlin fine sandy loam. The characteristics of the soil type Kimberlina fine sandy loam include that it is well drained soil with low run -off potential. Due to the characteristics of the on -site sail type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. c. See answers to VI.aJ. and VI.aJL In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard. oF0AKF9 sT U O ORIGINAL d. See answer to VI.b. e. See answer to VI.b. a. The proposed Project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, could contribute to global climate change impacts. Although the proposed Project is expected to emit greenhouse gases, the emission of greenhouse gases by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of greenhouse gas from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project's greenhouse gas emissions typically would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project's greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more property assessed on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the potential impacts from the proposed project's greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant. Global climate change is an issue where the causes and effects are not just regional or statewide, but worldwide. The impacts of this project are not considered significant given the efforts made to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. Regulation and policy that will result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in new residential and commercial developments include but are not limited to Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, AB 1493 motor vehicle standards, compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element as well as SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines and Rules. With local, regional and state regulation and other air quality regulation implemented, impacts will remain below a level of significance. b. The California Air Resources Board )CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California. According to California's Climate Change Scoping Plan, there must be a statewide reduction greenhouse gas jGHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 16 percent from business -as -usual emission levels projected for 2020 (baseline: 2002 -2004 average emissions). In addition, per SB375 requirements, CARB has adopted regional reduction targets; they call for a 5 percent reduction in per - capita emissions by 2020 and 10 percent reduction in 2035 within the San Joaquin Valley, using 2005 as the baseline. These regional reduction targets will be a part of the Kern COG Sustainable Communities Strategy. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted the guidance: Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy: District Policy - Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. As proposed, the project will not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB32 and S8375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scalping Plan. The project achieves "businesses- usual" GHG emissions reduction equal to or greater than the 16% targeted reduction goal CARB defines "business -as- usual" as "the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions." The proposed project is consistent with these statewide measures and considered not significant or cumulatively considerable under CEQA. F8pKF9 o sr U O ORIGINAL The City of Bakersfield has not adopted a greenhouse gas Climate Action Plan but is in the process of developing a Climate Action Plan as part of its general plan update. This project will not conflict with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and local ordinances. This project will not conflict with City policy for addressing GHG impacts nor with any other applicable plans, policies or regulations. As such, impacts from GHG emissions are considered less than significant. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. The record does not indicate that this project (or this type of land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to be a significant environmental impact. No impact. b. See answer to Vlll.a. c. The record does not support a finding that this project or this category of projects has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous emissions at a level which is potentially significant. No impact. d. The project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact. e. This project is located within an area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which coven all of Kern County. The area has an Airport Land Use Zone C designation, which requires a dedication of overflight easement for residential uses. With this mitigation, the impact is less than significant. f. The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan uses this 5,000 foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No impact. g. The proposed project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (January 19971. This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. No impact. h. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area covered by the Hillside Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department to address the issue of wild land fires and urban development. No impact. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure that the quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be substantially affected. No impact. b. The proposed development of an additional 27 residential units to what had been previously approved for the project site will not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Nor would the additional 27 residential units interfere with the groundwater recharge of the aquifer, therefore the impact to groundwater supplies would be considered less than significant. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All water companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The 61,Ke9q a m U p ORIGINAL appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide water system improvements to service the site, but this impact is less than significant. c. There are no streams or rivers on the project site. Existing drainage patterns will not be significantly altered. All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on -site and off -site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. Impact is less than significant. d. See answer to IX.c. e. See answer to IX.c. f. See answer IX.a. g. The project does not propose housing within a 100 -year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No impact. h. The project does not propose any structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact. I. The project is within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area, but not the 100 -year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII -2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan (Safety Element), However, chances of loss, injury and /or death are so remote (the worst case scenario is one event in more than 10,000 years - source: Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk is regarded as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). Less than significant impact. j. The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is not located at the foot of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a mud flow. No impact. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern or is an infill development that does not physically divide the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. No impact. See Table l below. TABLE 1 LAND USE/ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES LOCATION LAND USE ZONE DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION NORTH LR R -1 Vacant, approved VTTM 7029 SOUTH LR R -1 Agricultural, approved VTTM 7029 EAST LR R -1 Agricultural WEST LR R -1 Vacant, approved VITM 7029 (under construction) �gAKF9 m U O ORIGINAL b. The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. The record does not indicate that there are identified environment conflicts or inconsistencies with said policies a zoning regulations. No impact. c. See answer to IV.a., IV.e., IV.f. With mitigation in place, less than significant. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES a) The project is not located within a California Department of Conservation Division of Oil. Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources. Accordingly, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, or the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact. I See answer to XI.a. XII. NOISE a. The proposed project is compatible with existing land uses in the project area and areas immediately adjoining the project parcel. Development of the project will not expose persons or generate noise in excess of those standards found in the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The impact is less than significant. b. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground borne vibration or noise. No impact. c. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation will result in a 20-decibel reduction in noise for habitable interior space. In addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will contribute to decreasing the ambient noise levels from the adjoining area. The project is not anticipated to expose people to severe noise levels and existing ordinance requirements will reduce noise impacts to less than significant. d. Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic ) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise levels are less than significant. e. This project is located within an area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (KCALUCP) which covers all of Kern County because it is located south of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. The area has an Airport Land Use Zone C designation, which notes that there could be frequent noise intrusion for facilities within Zone C. However, in a more recent study of airport land use and noise done in 2006 (Preliminary Evaluation of ALUC Safety Zones, Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates, Airport Planning Consultants, March 22, 2006, associated with GPA 06 -2202) the study determined that the acceptable noise levels occur in the project area, although an occasional single noise would be heard in the project area, but in acceptable State and Federal Aviation Agency noise levels. Less than significant impact. I. This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip and therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact. oFeAKF9 T � m U O ORIGINAL XIII. a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but the increase of 27 dwelling units' impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project, see Table 2. Less than significant impact. TABLE 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS PROPOSED PERSONS PER LAND USE DWELLING UNITS HOUSEHOLD POPULATION Multiple - Family 27 du 3.07 83 TOTALS 27 du Source: 2010 Federal Census b. The project would not displace any existing housing. The project site is currently vacant land. No significant impacts are noted. c. The project would not result in the displacement of any persons. See answer to Xlll.b. above. No significant impacts are noted. a. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County, The projected increase of 83 new residents and 27 new structures into the City. Though the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. No impact. b. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.09 officers for every 1.000 people in the City. The projected increase of 83 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of 0.09 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. Less than significant impact. c. The proposed development could produce 22 dwellings units and generate approximately 15 school age children as indicated in Table 3. This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant. TABLE 3 SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION TYPE AND NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL DWELLING K -B 9 -12 TOTAL PUPILS UNITS Duplex b x 0.39 =11 (b =27) units b x 0.14 =4 15 Source: 2000 Federal Census; Student Generation Rates -2003 Kern County Office of Education [CG - collecting updated information, will provide soon] gAK4 of sT > m v or ORIGINAL d. The project proposes a population increase of 83 and may result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Total park acreage estimated for the project is 0.21 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. The impact is less than significant. e. Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of this area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant. XV. RECREATION a. See answer to Parks, (XIV.d.). b. See answer to Parks, (XIV.d.). XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a. Because of the small number of additional dwelling units associated with this zone change (27) a trip generation analysis has not been prepared for the project. The project may cause a slight increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may alter the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. However, the impact is not considered significant because the proposal would not degrade the existing Level of Service (LOS) of adjacent and area roads. Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires the City of Bakersfield to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right -of -way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. These measures would be implemented at the time the project site is developed. All regional traffic Impacts caused by this development would be addressed according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all on -site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed. Less than significant impact. b. See answer to XVI.a. c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. No impact. d. All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are no incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No impact. e. The proposal would not impact any emergency management agency's ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. No impact. f. The project is not anticipated to be inconsistent with any policies or programs supporting alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impact fees which in part are used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No impact. o�eAKF9T m U O ORIGINAL XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact. b. The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities. Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development. No impact. c. Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water facilities, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing system. No impact. d. 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 water utilities would be required to serve this development. No impact. e. The City of Bakersfield is the waste water treatment provider and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project. No impact. f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. No impact. g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to xVll.f. No impact. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2801 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant. b. The proposal has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only proposing to change the zoning district from single family residential zone to a limited multi - family residential zone, which could potentially increase the dwelling units by 27. Less than significant impact. c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. No impact. oF0PKF9.(, s m � o ORIGINAI BIBLIOGRAPHY /REFERENCE LIST I. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222- 02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003 2. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) It 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, 2002 3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002 4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991 5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a) (1) (b) and 2081 permits, 1994 & 2014 6. Implementation /Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern 7. Ttle 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code B. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code 9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000 10. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002 as updated 11. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by David Toussig & Associates 12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures 13. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan 14. Kern County /Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan 15. Kern County, California - Soil Survey 16. Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 1996, as amended on August 29, 2007. 17. Kern County Rood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella. 18. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986). 19. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas. 20. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 21. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for a Residential Project at Panama Lane and South Union Avenue, City of Bakersfield, California, Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, January 2005 22. Preliminary Evaluation of ALUC Safety Zones, Walter E. GiIlfllan and Associates, Airport Planning Consultants, March 22, 2006 OpKF 23. Water Will Serve letter for Tract 7029, dated September 6, 2016, California Water Service of 'q in U O ORIGINAL