Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 144-02RESOLUTION NO. _~J._- (~ ~. RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-0290 OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2002, and THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002, on General Plan Amendment 02-0290 of a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment 02-0290 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element'of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: General Plan Amendment 02-0290 Arredondo Ventures, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on a 2.67 acre subject site generally located along the east side of Wible Road approximately 400 feet south of Panama Lane; and WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration with mitigation was prepared; 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 the city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 63-02 on June 20, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment 02-0290 subject to conditions, mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "1" and this Council has fully considered the finding made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, August 21,2002 on the above described General Plan Amendment 02-0290 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and ORtGiNAL WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. 2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed. 3. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA. A traffic study was not required for the subject site; however, the applicant did submit a traffic analysis for the proposal. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The existing inventory of OC designated land in south Bakersfield does not appear adequate to serve the area. 10. Mitigation measures/conditions are included to lessen impacts of the project. 11. The recommended approval to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone is a condition of approval of the General Plan Amendment. 12. The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices justify the amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 13. Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711 of the Sate of California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the above-reference absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Negative Declaration for 02-0290 is hereby approved and adopted. 2 The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved. The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment 02- 0290 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "2", attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located along the east side of Wible Road approximately 400 feet south of Panama Lane, subject fo mitigation measures conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "1". That General Plan Amendment 02-0290, approved herein, be combined with other approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land Use Element Amendment. ......... 000 ........ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on RUG 2 1 ,'~ii, , by the following vote: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and rk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AUG 21 2002 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney EXHIBIT "1" General Plan Amendment 02-0290 MITIGATION MEASURES\CONDITIONS Plann nq Commission 1. As a condition of the General Plan Amendment approval, the applicant shall apply for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone change on the 2.67 acre subject site. Planninq Department Prior to any ground disturbance on this property, we recommend that a qualified professional archaeologist conduct a field survey of all undeveloped portions of the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University Bakersfield). Public Works Along with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, or application for a lot line adjustment, the following shall occur: Provide fully executed dedication for Wible Road to arterial standards for the full frontage of the area within the GPA request. Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Submit a current title report with the dedication documents. Construct improvements to City standards on Wible Road for the full frontage of the area within the GPA request. Submit a comprehensive drainage study to be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Site any drainage retention facility on the periphery of the GPA area to facilitate future expansion or consolidation of drainage facilities as adjacent area develops. The study shall be approved and any required retention site and necessary easements dedicated to the City. Submit verification to the City Engineer of the existing sewer system's capability to accept the additional flows to be generated through development under the new land use and zoning. Payment of median fees for the frontage of the property within the GPA request. These fees may be paid prior to recordation of any map or approval of improvement plans. Access to the arterial and collector streets will be limited and determined at time of division or development. Determination of whether a right turn lane is required at the access street(s) will also be made at the time of division or development. Development on the site shall be subject to the Traffic Impact Fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The entire area covered by this General plan Amendment shall be included in the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the Consolidate Maintenance District with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application for a lot line adjustment for any portion of this GPA area. DR~INA ROAD EXHIBIT "C" APPEAL Sent By: Clty o~ BaKerstlelM CLERKS OFFIG;O§I 323 3780; HARRY C. AG Mailing (~1) 323-4844 · 832-7166 ,. 325-9076 2:5§PM; Page' 213 ~ Honorable Mayor Harvey L. Hall c/o The City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, California . e: A requeSt't6 reg6ind the Planned Commercial Development Zone (PCD) that inordinately creates time consuming expenses and delays. June24,2002 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bakersfield City' Counci Pleasc be assured that the appellant, Jose Arredon~ of, A~r{edendo Ventures, Inc., appreciates the time you're spending to hear the reasons fo~ Seeking the removal of the PCD Zone, which was added during The Planning Core'missioners heating to the Planning Departments already acceptable conditions 5g · The subject parcel of[and is 2.67 acres in size and tl~ address of the single-thmily residence at the Southwest comer of the site is 6640 Wibl~e Road. The property localion is just south of the Rite Aid Drug store that is situated ~t tfi~southeast comer of Wible Road and Panama Lane. The appel/nut applied for a Oe~er~a~.Plan Amendment and a Zone Change from R-2 to C-O. The report prepared by the City Planning Department was presented W th~ Bakersfield Planning Commission for a public hearing on the evening of June 20, 2002. It is identified on their agenda as~Items 6.4a and 6.4b and ils formal ntmabcr for The General Plan Amendment is No.~02-0290 and for the Zone Change is No. 02-0290. Both items were recommended by the Planning Department to be approved by the said Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved both ile~as but only after one member added the PCD zb.ne. This addition is the contentious act. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the representative of the objector, a neighbor with 8 or more acres located due west across Wiblc Road~fi;dsled the Commissioners with his statements. In particular he stated "We are very near to reeking a deal tbr a restaurant at the present time". This is questionable since their parcel is too,'t,~arge to justify the extensive Sent By: Clty o¢ BaKersfield CLERKS OFFZC;661 323 3780; 'ld~fl-26-02 2:57PM; amount of work and the time to accomplish ~id · Planning Department does not have any mapping,, fees for a Site Plan Review. There is not any trunk line has been accomplished. Verification is; Office. The Objectors representative also entered into shabbily the Planning Commission that they had been ~ three years restaurant on 8 or more acres c Jose Arredondo, by stressing tha and in effect he caused another the already established conditions prepared long to hold a prospect. The nor las il received any sewer connection to a main City Planning , dissertation about how years ago. Their "Beef" was site for Them again, one He injured the appellant, : sort should be invoked, ~ of ... ~. As already mentioned, The Planning Commission appr0v~ed the application for GPA/ZC N0.'0220290. Therefore the ObjectOrs will have,ac, r~s to express any grievance they may have about a restaurant even if the Plhnned Commercial ' Development Zone is rescinded. Their access to object to any proposal for a restaurant in a C-0 Zone is evident in Section 17.20.020 through Section 17.20.040. Under Section 17.20.040, a Conditional Use Permit is required and therefore a public hearing will occur. Thus thc Objector has an opportunity to express his gri¢,v~n~ if a restaurant is proposed to be sited on the Appellant's land. There are 15 uses l~sted in the C-0 Zone that require a Conditional Use Permit to be issued. A restaurant use requires such a Conditional Use Permit. ~ " l believe that the recommended terms set forth by the Planning Department have included all of thc measures that must be followed to protect the community, the consumer and the neighbors. ~ In the interest of providing a thir playing field,'l encourage the Council to seriously cons/der this request to remove the onerous PCD Zone condition imposed over and above the acceptable and adequate conditions presented bY[The..~Planning Department. lhc Appellant Arredondo Ventures, lnc concurs with this request. Han2JC. Ellingstf6n Jr. RCE 11923 EXHIBIT "D" ENVIRONMENTAL I~ Z~. K ~ R g F I E I, D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the 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, JUNE 17, 2002 in the Council Chambers, City Hall. The Monday portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or deny this project will be taken on Monday. The hearing will be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, to consider the following request: The project to be considered: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0290 Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on 2.67 acres and a zone change from R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) to C-O (Professional and Administrative Office) on 2.67 acres. Project location: Subject site is located along the east side of Wible Road approximately 400 feet south of Panama Lane. The name and address of the project applicant: ARREDONDO VENTURES INC. 6860 District Boulevard Bakersfield, CA 93313 NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at the same time and place by the Planning Commission to receive input from the public on the potential effect of this project on the environment. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impact of the proposed project. This study has shown that the proposal (as mitigated) will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration is proposed. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public through the Planning Department (contact Richard Dole) in the Development Services building at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (661) 326-3733, or by e-mailing the department at Planning~ci.bakersfield.ca.us. Our website address is ci.bakersfield.ca.us. 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 Planning Department. If you challenge the action taken on this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Bakersfield prior to the close of the hearing. DATED: April 25, 2002 POSTED: April 29, 2002 Planning Directo~ 75 \, ~ ......... ~ ........ ~ 0RI~iNA[ .AKERS m Z --I I ~)RI(.~INAI Z m © m 0 0 Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director April 29, 2002 Stanley C. Grady Planning Director (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 TO: Responsible or Other Interested Agency SUBJECT: Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0290 Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Negative Declaration for the project identified in the attached Initial Study. We would appreciate the views of your agency as to the scope, content and adequacy of the environmental information which is applicable to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use this Negative Declaration when considering any permits or other approvals needed for this project. In order to review and consider your comments on this project, please send your response no later than 20 days after receipt of this notice to Richard Dole, Associate Planner, the project planner assigned to this case, at the address indicated above. In your response, please include the name of the contact person in your agency. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the California Government Code, notice is hereby given that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield. Said hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the matter may be heard on MONDAY, June 17, 2002, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Monday portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or deny this project will be taken on Monday. The hearing will be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, June 20, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301. For more information, please call the department at (661) 326-3041. Sincerely, Richard Dole Associate Planner S:\Dole\02-0290~Agency Itr.wI~l City of Bakersfield · 1715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Stanley C. Grady Planning Director (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 April 29, 2002 Dear Property Owner or Other Interested Party: You are being sent the attached notice because the Kern County tax records indicate you own property in a proposed project area or within 300 feet of a proposed project (see attached map), or you have specifically requested this notice be sent to you. The attached notice describes the proposed project and draft environmental document the City of Bakersfield is currently processing. Through this notice, we are informing you of your opportunity to comment either in favor or against the proposed project. You should express your comments at the public hearing indicated on the attached notice. However, if you are unable to attend this hearing, you may submit written comments to this department or contact me by telephone at (661) 326-3041 prior to the heating so that your comments can be considered by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Richard Dole Associate Planner S:~Dole\02-0290\prop own.wpd 9330~ m City of Bakersfield · 171 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · '-77 10. APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form INITIAL STUDY Project Title: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0290 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield Planning Depadment 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Contact Person and Phone Number: Richard Dole, Associate Planner (661) 326-3733 Project Location: East side of Wible Road approximately 400 feet south of Panama Lane (Attachment "B") Project Sponsor's Name and Address: ARREDONDO VENTURES 6860 District Boulevard Bakersfield, CA 93313 General Plan Designation: LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwellings) (Note: General Plan designations and zoning district designations are shown on Attachment "D"). Description of Project: Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing land use designation from LMR to OC and a zone change amendment from R-2 to C-O on the 2.67 acre subject site. The property owner wishes to pursue placement of professional offices on the subject site. (See Attachment "D' for land use designations). Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Subject site is located within the southward path of the growth of the City. Urban growth, primarily commercial along Panama Lane and residential north and south of Panama Lane, almost completely surrounds the site. Exceptions to this growth pattern is undeveloped land immediately to the east and south of the subject site and west of Wible Road. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): N/A [] [] ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics [] Biological Resources [] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Agricultural Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Hydrology / Water Quality [] Air Quality Geology / Soils Land Use / Pl~ning [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] [] Public Services [] Recreation [] [] Utilities / Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance Population / Housing Transportation / Traffic DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 bythe project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature/ Printed name For 2 Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [] not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [] quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which [] would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] Less Than Significa, nt Impact [] [] [] [] No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California 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 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY -- 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 obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish 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 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) 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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation Impact No Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 4 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to {}15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological [] resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred [] outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [] [] [] Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant Impact [] [] [] No Impact 5 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Cede (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properly? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Potentially Significant Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, [] injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant With Mitigation tncorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6 Potentially Significant Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [] requirements? 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 groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration 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-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of toss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant Impact [] [] [] [] No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Xl. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in [] excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [] groundborne vibration or groundborne noise 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 [] or, 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 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [] [] Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Sign~icant No Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 10 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 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 commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?. Revised March 23, 2000 S:',Dole\02-0290~Appendix G Check List.wpd 11 II APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form Response Sheet GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 02-0290 INITIAL STUDY AESTHETICS The project site is located within an area having natural slopes from 0-5%. The area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan as visually important or "scenic". There is no scenic vista that would be impacted by the construction of this project. No I m pact. 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. There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. No Impact. This project involves incremental growth of urban development typical of the area. Light from this development wilt not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime as the light generated is typical of urban development. Typical development standards as required by the zoning ordinance address the issue of light and glare. This impact is not regarded as significant. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The project does not convert 100 acres or more of any of the farmlands designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Department of Conservation Kern County Interim - Farmland 1996, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. There are currently more than 1.6 million acres under Williamson Act Contract in Kern County (1999), the loss of less than 100 acres is clearly not a significant change to this resource (.00625 % of the total amount of prime farmland under contract 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. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor is it under Williamson Act Contract. Properties zoned for residential development have special setback requirements between residential structures and agricultural uses or zoning (see Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.150). No Impact. 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 2010 General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its spec. ific result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. nature, Appendix G Project Title Page 2 Ill AIR QUALITY The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles which are the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality Impacts promulgated by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, (page 16 and section 6) list 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, location of commercial development in proximity to residential development are consistent with the listed strategies. This project is subject to the full range of local ordinances which ensure compliance with these air quality strategies. No significant impacts are noted or implementation of existing ordinances and rules will reduce impacts to less than significant. The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 24 table 4-1 Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year, Nox 10 tons (Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts). Nor is the project within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, "Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts). In addition, dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII are required for all construction in the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM-10 impacts to less than a significant level. The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the Southern San Joaquin Valley is in nonatlainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Pollution from this project was taken into consideration in previous environmental analysis which took into account that this area would be urban. This analysis was completed for the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report which identified the amount of urbanization and resultant air pollution which would be generated within the general plan area. Mitigation from the Final Environmental Impact Report was incorporated into various policies, implementation measures and ordinances. In addition, no adverse comments were received from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on this project. The impact is not regarded as significant. There is no evidence that this project creates any pollutant "hot spot" that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution receptors. The only potential "hot spots" are located at intersections which are "severely" congested. There are no adjacent intersections which are at a level of service "F" and therefore by definition no significant pollutant "hot spot" impacts are identified for this project. No Impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 3 IV The land use permitted as a result of 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 (for the list of projects please see table 4-2, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). No Impact. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United State Fish and Wildlife Services and California State Department of Fish and Game, 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 which is less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h) of the CEQA Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted, is an enforceable standard that meets the definition of Section 15064(h)(3). Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area but does fall within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Wildlife Service mandates certain requirements that by ordinance all development projects must comply. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level. The project crosses no stream, either perennial or intermittent based on the United States Geological Survey topographic sheet for the area. In addition, there are no typical flora or fauna associated with wetlands on the site. There are no "Federally Protected Wetlands" identified in the project area. No Impact. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or along a canal which has been identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Services as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no evidence in the record that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No Impact. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan 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. No Impact. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources, see answer to IV e above. No Impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 4 V CULTURALRESOURCES There are no structures/resources on the site listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.). Resources on site are not listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resource Code and are not found to be significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. No Impact. The California Archaeological Inventory (CAI) at California State University Bakersfield has reviewed the existing literature for archaeological resources for this project and did not indicate a adverse change in the significance of any on site archaeological resource. The CAI did recommend a mitigation measure (see Attachment Nos. "A" and "C"). Less than significant with mitigation. This project is not located in the Shark Tooth Mountain bone bed which is the only unique paleontological resource identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. In addition, 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. There is no evidence that the project is located within an area likely to produce human remains in the opinion of the California State Inventory at California State University Bakersfield. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian. See answer to V b. VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Bakersfield, located in the San Joaquin Valley, has been 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 fault systems are the San Andreas, the Breckenridge-Kern County, the Garlock, the Pond Poso and the White Wolf. There are numerous additional 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 earthquake induced landslides. Future structures proposed on the project site will 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 will adhere to all modern earthquake standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Appendix G Project Title Page 5 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. Impacts will be less than significant when construction conforms to Uniform Building Code seismic construction requirements. a.ii. See answer to VI.al. Liquefaction potential is a combination of soil type, ground water depth and seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. No Impact. See also the answer to a VII i. a.iv. See answer to Vl.a i. The soil types prevalent on the proposed sites are listed in the Kern County California Soil Survey for the Northwestern region. Based on the soil survey, the soil type found on the subject site is Kimbedina fine sandy loam, 0 - 2 per cent slopes. The characteristics of the soil type include moderate permeability, water capacity is high, runoff is slow and water erosion is slight. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or exhibit 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. No Impact. See answers to VI a i and VI a ii. 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. No impact. d. See answer to VI b. e. See answer to VI b. VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There is no evidence in the record which indicates 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 VII a. There is no evidence 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. Appendix G Project Title Page 6 d. This project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No significant impact is anticipated. No Impact. This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions within the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of Kern County. No Impact. The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip and it is therefore presumed not to have any land use impacts at this distance. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1993) uses this 5,000 foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No Impact. The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Jan.1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. The proposed project could introduce substances typical of offices located in an office complex. However, hazardous waste facilities guidelines have been adopted for Kern County to provide for adequate designation of hazardous waste disposal facilities to serve the residents and the industries of Kern County and its various incorporated cities thus, reducing the impacts to a less than significant level. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area or it is within the area covered by the Hillside Development Ordinance (HD) which has standards required by the Kern County Fire Department which address the issue of wildland fires and urban development. No Impact. VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All water utility companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide some water system improvements to service the site. No Impact. There are no streams or rivers on the project site, existing drainage patterns will not be altered to a significant degree. All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on and off site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. No Impact. Appendix G Pr~ect Title Page 7 See answer to VIII c. e. See answer to VIII c. f. See answer VIII a. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No Impact. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No Impact The proposed project is not within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area or the 100 year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (Safety Element). Or the project is within the inundation area but the chances of loss injury and/or death are so remote (worst case scenario, one event in more than 10,000 years, Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk involved is regarded as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). No Impact. 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 mudflow. No Impact. IX LAND USE AND PLANNING The project is the continuation of the existing development pattern or an infill development which does not physically divide any existing community. No significant impacts are noted. See Table I. TABLE I Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties LAND USE ZONING EXISTING LAND USE LOCATION DESIGNATION DISTRICT NORTH GC C-1 Commercial, Panama Lane SOUTH LMR R-2 Undeveloped Land, Single-Family Units EAST LR R-1 West Branch Canal, Undeveloped Land WEST GC, HMR C-2, R-2 Wibte Road, Undeveloped Land The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts with policies or ordinances which were established to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. No Impact. ¢ ~,~,~t-6~6~ Appendix G Project Title Page 8 See answer to Va. X MINERALRESOURCES The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources, see figure V-3 Conservation Element, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. No Impact. b. See answer to X a. Xl NOISE Development of the project will not expose persons or generate noise, in excess of those standards found in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, Noise Element. No Impact. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground bourne vibration or noise. No Impact. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation result in a 20 d.b.a, reduction in noise for interior space. In addition, 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 than significant. 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 has not been found to be significant. No Impact. This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of Kern County. No Impact. This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip and therefore does not have the potential to cause significant noise impacts (Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). No Impact. Xll POPULATION AND HOUSING The project, a 2.66 acre proposed professional office site may induce population growth in this area; however, due to the site's small size and the site being in the path of the city's southward expansion, it is difficult to speculate that the proposed project would be a generator of population and dwelling units. It could be said that the southerly expansion of the city has generated the need for professional offices. The project is the logical extension of existing urban development. No Impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 9 The project does not propose the displacement of any existing housing. No significant impacts are noted. The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No significant impact noted. XIII PUBLIC SERVICES a. Fire Protection? Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. Projected increase of approximately 25,000 square feet of 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 is not deemed significant. No Impact. Police Protection? Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. However, this potential increase in services by this development and is not deemed a significant impact. No Impact. Schools? The project will not impact school facilities to a significant degree. No Impact. Parks? The project proposes no increase in population for the area and would not result in a impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or create a substantial need for new parks of recreational facilities. No Impact. Other Public Facilities? 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. No Impact. XIV RECREATION a. See answer to "Parks". b. See answer to "Parks ". Appendix G Project Title Page 10 XV TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Applicant has prepared a traffic analysis for the proposed project. The A.M peak hour was 68 trip ends while the P.M. peak hour was 55 trip ends. This study was based on a 25,000 square foot structure. Review and concurrence of the traffic study was by the city traffic engineer (see Attachment "C"). Less than significant impact. The project must comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan which has a level of service standard C which is higher than the Congestion Management Plan level of service standard D. No Impact. c. The project does not propose air traffic or impact air traffic patterns. No Impact. 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. All projects are by ordinance subject to the access requirements of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department which includes an evaluation of adequate emergency access. No Impact. The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use be provided. No Impact The project is not anticipated to be ~nconsistent in any way with policies or programs supporting alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impacts fees which in part is used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No Impact XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No Impact. 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, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility companies will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact. Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water facilities, the construction of which is typically an exlension of the existing system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 11 The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility companies will be contacted and the one which provides for this area, California Water Service Company, has submitted a will serve letter for this project. No Impact. 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. 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. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. No Impact. XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan 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 State Department of Fish and Game, 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 which is less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h) of the CEQA Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted, is an enforceable standard that meets the definition of Section 15064(h)(3). Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. As described in the responses above, the proposal has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. LMR development would appear to create more impacts than the proposed professional office development. LMR development would impact schools and recreation/park facilities where professional offices would not have such an impact. Also, residential occupants by their very nature tend to need emergency services (i.e. fire, police, medical, etc) more often than office development. However, 29,000 square feet of office development on the subject site would generate a 320 vehicle ADT (Average Daily Traffic) as opposed to a 174 ADT for 27 multiple- family units. Less than significant impact. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact. ATTACHMENT "A" MITIGATION MEASURES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 02-0290 Planninq Department Prior to any ground disturbance on this property, we recommend that a qualified professional archaeologist conduct a field survey of all undeveloped protions of the project site (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University Bakersfield). ITl ]f 0 "1- I1'1 --.I ROAD I Rict?,a. rd Do_le - GPNZC P02-0290, SmP~ ~ Assoc,. 2 66 acre south of wible and pe''~ -,a Pa~e 1 , ATTACHMENT "C" From: Steve Walker To: Richard Dole Date: 4/23/02 11:30AM Subject: GPA/ZC P02-0290, Smith and Assoc, 266 acre south of wible and panama we have reviewed the traffic analysis submitted by Harry Ellingston, Smith Associates, and conclude that the analysis is adequate and concur that the Traffic impact Fee rates can be used for mitigation cc: traffic file (bruce) Stephen L. Walker, PE Traffic Engineer - Public Works Department City of Bakersfield, California Office Phone: (661) 326-3959 Office FAX: (661) 324-7483 email: swalker@ci.bakersfield.ca u s website: www.ci.bakersfieldca.uslcityserviceslpubwrksfTrafficEnglindex-htm CC: Bruce Deeter; Marian Shaw ATTACHMENT "C" ~9 (661)832-7166 APRIL l, 2002 JOB No.F-5-O1 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IRAFFIC ENGINEERING 15011RUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CA 95501 RE: GPA/Z.C. FOR A 2.66 ACRE PARCEL ON WIBLE ROAD SOUTH OF PANAMA LANE. SMITH & ASSOCIATES JOB No. F-5-01 GENTLEMEN AND LADIES: PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AS JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SUBJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. ]HE PROJECT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE THE PRESENT R-2 ZONING TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (C.0.) USE. EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY,THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER VISIBLE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE. As SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED ]ABLE 1 THE ESTIMATED BUILDING AREA AVAILABLE FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE IS 29,000 S.F. WITH AN A.m. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION OF 68*TRIP ENDS. IHE P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION IS ESTIMATED TO BE 55*TRIP ENDS. IHIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN INSIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRIP GENERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S PUBLISHED "M~THODOLOGY FOR INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT FEES", THEREFORE EXEMPTING THE PROJECT FROM FROMiPERFORMING A DETAILED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. THE PROJECT APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FIXED RATE FEE SCHEDULE BE USED TO COMPUTE THE REQUIRED IMPACT FEES FOR THIS PROJECT. IABLE I IS ON THE ATTACHED SHEET ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE DATA ABOUT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND X-~GPY.oF THE KERN COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ~AP No.515-01 ON WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~IS HIGHLIGHTED. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE AT 832-71661F THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION. SEE ATTACHED SHEET ENCL. YOURS TRULY HARRY C. i/~LL I I~GSTON APRIL 1, 2002 JoB No.F-5-01 PROJECT IRAFFIC [AItLE ]: PROPOSED /C-0 - PROJICT iRAFFIC A.M- PEAK HOOR TRIP ENDS 'hff{ AVERAGE RAIE USED lO i)EI(RMINE AM AND [~ F~AK HOUIv 1RI)' GENERATION IRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS",DENCEFOR[tt REFENRFI; 10 Ab [I~,A !99/ PIJBLICA[ION- %EN[RAL OFFICE BUILDING"(Z10); "SINGLE IENANT OFFICE BUILDING~ (Z~); AND "MEDICAL ~ENTAL 0EFICE BUILDING~(7~0). 0F PARTICULAR INTEREST WA5 THE AND THE P.M. SIIUATIONS. iFTERMINED AS ~OLLOW~: (E)IIMAI[D ~UII.D1NG FLOOR AN A Fh0CC ~.F-~ A.T. } (/![]) ~ .'.,Il ,; IOTAL 7,00 8IRA~C~T LINE AVERAGE 2.55 1.~q : ~'~ERACE RATE PEAK HOUR IRIPS = 68 55 SIIE SIAS11ST1CSi 1. LIES SOUTHEAST OF TttE INTERSECTION OF WIBLE ROAD g PANAMA LANE. 2. APN 516-010=03 3. PRESENT ZONING R-2 AS PER DAVE RIZER. 4. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE Is 6~40 WIBLE ROAD. 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION,AS PER ASSESSORS DATA SHEET,PARCEL MAP 3509, PARCEL LOT PTN 6. SUBJECT SITE LIES WITHIN THE NW{ SECTION 25, 1.30 S.,R.2? E.,MDB&M.. ?. AccEss TO THE SITE IS FROM WIBLE ROAD. THE WESTLINE OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT FRONTS ON WIBLE ROAD. 8. AN EARTHEN CANAL IS ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EAST BOUNDRY OF IHE SITE. THE LAND ON THE EAST SIDE OF TttE CANAL IS BARREN AND THE $.~. GREEN LAWN CEMETARY LIES APPROXIMATELY 990 FEET EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 9. lO THE NORTH AND ,AGAIN A RITE AID DRUG STORE IS CONTIGUOUS,TO TttE SUBJECT SITE. 10. lO TltE WEST ACCROSS WIBLE ROAD 1S ANOTHER BARREN PARCELTHAT FRONTS ON ~IBLF RD. (~}~'FRONTAGE) AND ALSO FRONTS ON PANAMA LN.(~8~') AND CONSISTS OF ~/_ 1~ ACRES. IHIS LATTER PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL. 11. iHE LAND TO THE SOUTH OF THE JUST DESCRIBED 12 AC. 1S ZONED MULTIPLE HOUSING AND CONTAINS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 20 AC.IHE DEPTH OF THIS PROPERTY IS 1292'. ]2. 10 THE NORTH OF PANAMA LN. AND ON EITHER SIDE OF WIBLE ARE COMMERCIAL~:K~.BUSINNES~ESps CONSISTING OF AN ALBERISON MKT.,AN EXXON SERVICE STA.~ A RESTAURANI~A~D'~S~LL SHO . 13. lO THE SOUIH OF THE SITE AS WELL AS THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE WEST~)iD~©~BLE RD- TItERE IS A CONCRETE LINED CANL THAT SERVES THE ARVIN-EDISON IRRICATION BI'RIOT. lq. Al IHIS lIME NO PUBLIC ROADS ARE PLANNED WITHIN IHE BOUNDRIES OF'~J{~!F~ ~ ATTACHMENT "C" CALIFORNIA ~.~ FRESNO HISTORICAl- ~!~t~ KERN RESOURCES ~ KINOS INFORMATION ~.II~ MADERA TULARE - ,ithertt San Joaquin Valley Information Center California State University, Bakersfield 900! Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, California 93311-1099 661/664-2;Z89 FAX 6611664-24iS E-mail: abaldwin~csubak, edu TO: Mr. Harry C. Ellingston, ~Tr. 801 Vista Verde Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 (RS # 02-095) DATE: RE: County: Map(s): March 20, 2002 Project at 6640 Wible Road, Bakersfield, CA PRIORITY Gosford 7.5' The Archaeological Information Center is under contract to the State Office of Historic Preservation and is responsible for the local management of the California Historical Resources Inventories. The Center is funded by research fees and o grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation. The Information Center does not conduct fieldwork and is not affiliated with any archaeological consultants who conduct fieldwork. A referral list of individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards for their profession is available upon request. CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORD5 SEARCH The following are the results of o search of the cultural resources files at the Southern San ,Toequin Valley Archaeological Information Center. These files include known and recorded archaeological and historic sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (12/01), the California State Historical Landmarks, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, ond the California Points of Historical Interest. PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND A z MILE RADIUS 2 There have been no previous cultural resource surveys conducted within the project area. There have been three previous cultural resource surveys conducted within a ½ mile radius. Bibliographic references are available upon request. ? ~ PRIORITY PRIORITY (RS $ 02-095) KNOWN AND/OR RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND A ½ MILE RADIUS There ore no known/recorded cultural resources within the project oreo, and it is not known if resources exist there. There ore no known cultural resources w/tAm the project orca that arc listed in thc National Register of Historic Places, California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Points of Historic Interest, or the California State Historic Landmarks. COMMENTS~RECOMMENDATIONS This 2.67-ocre parcel located at 6640 Wible Road, (Panama Lone & Wible Rood), in Bakersfield, is currently vacant except for o single-family residence located in thc southwest corner of the property. No cultural resource survey is recommended at this time. However, prior to any ground disturbance on this property, we recommend that o qualified professional archaeologist conduct o field survey of all undeveloped portions of the project site. A referral list of qualified professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards in their field is available upon request. Tf you hove any questions or comments, or need any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (661) 664-2289. Adele Baldwin Assistant Coordinator Dote: March 20, 2002 Fee; $180.00/hr. (Priority Service) (Paid Ck. 1~ 4404) PRIORITY Invoice c-~(1~1 Attachment "D" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS RR (Rural Residential 25 gross acres/dwelling I,l (Light Indu~,uial) unit) SI (Service Industl iai) ER (Estate Residential - 1 dwelling unit/net acre) I11 (llcavy Industrial) SR (Suburban Residential less than or equal to 4 dwelling units/net acre) LR (Low Density Residential - less than or equal to P (Public Facilities) 7.26 dwelling units/net acre) PS (Public/Private School) LMR (Low Medium Density Residential - greater than 4 and less than or equal to 10 dwelling units/net I'T (Public Transportation) acre) P.SW (Solid Waste Facilities,, HMR (High Medium Density Residential - greater than 7.26 and less than 1742 dwelling units/net acre) O$ (Open Spucc) HR (High Density Residential - greater than 1742 OS-ID ti'arks) and less than or equal to 72.6 dwelling units/net acre) OS-S (Slopes) - - - R-IA ([~.esoutcc-lntcnsive A?iCUiILIIC, 20 acres minimum) HC (Highway Commercial) R-EA (Resource-Extensive Agricuhure, GC (General Commercial) 20 acres minimum) MC (Major Commercial) R-MP (Resource-Mineral Petroleum, 5 acres minimum) CC (Office Commerciat) MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) General Plan Street Classification Arterials are used primarily b) through traffic, with a minimal function to provide access to Freeways provide service te through traffic exclusively abutting pr0pelty. with no access te abutting property and no at grade intersections Collectors function to connect local streets with arterials and to provide access to abutting Expressways are at terial highwuys with at leust partial property. control of access which may or may not be divided or have grade separations at intersections and ,]nay be an Locals are exclusively tor p~ opctty access and interim lhci[ily for an ultimate freeway through traffic is discouraged t~zone '~mr ~NA[ ATTACHMENT"D" ZONING DESIGNATIONS M-1 (Light Manufacturing) R-1 (One Family Dwelling 6,000 sq ft /dwelling unit) E (Estate 10,000 sqft/dwelling unit) R-S (Residential Suburban 24,000 sq fi/dwelling unit) R-S-lA (Residential Suburban, one-acre m~mmum lot size) R-S-2.SA (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre m~nimum lot size) R-S-SA (Residential Suburban five-acre m~nimum lot size) R-S-10A (Residential Suburban ten acre minimum lot size) R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling 1/2,500 sq ft/dwelling unit) R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/1,250 sq ft./dwelling unit) R-4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling 1/600 sq.ft/dwelling unit) R-H (Residential Holding) PUD (Planned Unit Development) C-O (Professional and Administration Office) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) C-2 (Regional Commercial) C-C (Commercial Center) PCD (Planned Commercial Development) M-2 (General Manufacturing) M-3 (Heavy Industrial) A (Agriculture) A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre m~nlmum) p (Automobile Parking) RE (Recreation) Ch (Church) OS (Open Space) HOSP. (Hospital) D (Architectural Design) (no longer in use) AD (Architectural Design) FP-P /Floodplain Primary) FP-S (Floodplain Secondary) AA (Airport Approach) TT (Travel Trailer Park) MH (Mobilehome) SC (Senior Citizen) t~zone 1 ¥