HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 164-02RESOLUTION NO. I 6 4" 0 2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 112 UNIT ONE AND TWO-STORY
APARTMENT COMPLEX ON A 6.43+ ACRE SITE, WITHIN AN R-
2/PUD ZONE DISTRICT (FILE NO. 02-653)
WHEREAS, Jim Ward Architecture filed an application requesting site plan
review approval of a 112 unit one and two-story apartment complex (24 one bedroom, 72
two bedroom, and 16 three bedroom units) on a 6.43+ acre site in an R-2/PUD (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone district located at 3900
Riverlakes Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission through its Secretary set Thursday,
September 5, 2002, at the hour of 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall,
Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said Commission
and notice of said hearing was given in the manner provided by Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the issue was duly heard and considered, and
the Planning Commission approved said site plan as the project would meet all required
development standards and mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendation to
the City Council recommending approval of the site plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council through its Clerk set September 19, 2002, at the
hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall, Bakersfield, California, as the time
and place for the Council's review of said site plan; and
WHEREAS, at the above mentioned meeting date, all evidence concerning
the project was considered by the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows:
A. That the Planning Commission's findings as contained in their resolution
(No. 104-02) are hereby adopted.
B. That the site plan is hereby approved as conditioned in said Planning
Commission resolution.
.......... O00 ..........
-2-
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
by the Co~c'll of.. t ~h.e.~City;~ 4u1~4 of Bakersfield, byatthea followingregular meetingvote: thereof held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ~
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ~
COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM, CARSON, COUCH, HANSON, MAGGARD, SALVAGGIO, SULLIVAN
COUNCILMEMBER ~
HARCVE'~ L. ~ALL, Mayor
CITY CLERK and Ex Offic~ Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED ,~'O FORM:
RESOLUTION NO. 104-02
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 112 UNIT ONE AND TWO.
STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT 3900 RIVERLAKES
DRIVE (SPR No. 02.0653)
WHEREAS, JIM WARD ARCHITECTURE filed an application requesting site plan
review approval of a 112 unit one and two-story apartment complex (24 one bedroom, 72 two bedroom,
and 16 three bedroom units) on a 6.43-+ acre site in an R-2/PUD (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone district located at 3900 Riverlakes Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, did set, TUESDAY,
September 3, 2002, and, THURSDAY, September 5, 2002, at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public
hearing before said Planning Commission on said application and accompanying proposed negative
declaration, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Seventeen of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code; 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 was prepared and posted on August 16, 2002, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative
Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been
duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing held September 5, 2002, the request for said site plan
review approval was duly heard and considered, and the Planning Commission found the construction of
said apartment complex was consistent with all relevant codes, policies and development standards as
adopted by the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows:
1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved.
3. That Site Plan Review No. 02-0653, as outlined above, is hereby approved with
conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A".
Page 1 of 2
SAllZA_SPR',FORMS~pr_data~O2-O653~resolution. do Al ~
On a motion by Commissioner Tkac and seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, the
Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the City Council by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish
None
None
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5~h day of
September, 2002.
DATED: September 5, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
~hairman
"'"Planning Corem ~sion
DR/pas
Page 2 of 2
S:'xBZA_SPR~,FORMSXspr_dataXO2-O653¥esolu ~on.doc
SPR #02-0653 Page I
EXHIBIT A
SITE PLAN COMPLIANCE LIST
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 02-0653
The following are specific items that the Site Plan Review Committee has noted that you
need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items may
include changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific
fees, and/or are comments that will help you in complying with the City ~ development standards.
The item will note when it is to be completed and each has been grouped by department so that you
know who to contact if you have questions.
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (staff contact - Phil Burns 661/326-3718)
The applicant shall submit 4 copies of grading plans and 2 copies of the preliminmy soils
report to the Building Division. You must submit a final soils report to the Building Division
before they can issue a building permit.
The applicant shall include fire resistive wall construction details with the final building
plans for all exter4or walls of any building that are within 20' of property lines if it is
commercial, or 5' of property lines if it is residential.
Include with or show on the final building plans information necessary to verify that the
project complies with all disability requirements of Title 24 of the State Building Code.
The applicant shall obtain all required approvals from the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department (2700 "M" Street, Bakersfield, CA; Ph. 661/862-8700) for any public
pool or related facility before building permits can be issued. Disabled access to any public
pool and related facility shall comply with Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Structures exceeding 10,000 square feet in area shall require installation of an automatic fire
sprinkler system.
Before the Building Division can allow occupancy of this multiple-family residential
complex, they must inspect and approve the placement and colors of the address numbers
identifying each unit and/or building, and building/unit location maps so that emergency
personnel can easily find a specific unit when responding to the site during an emergency.
Business identification signs are not considered nor approved under this review. A separate
review and sign permit from the Building Division is required for all new signs, including
future use and construction signs. Signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance (Chapter
17.60).
The Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fee at
the time they issue a building permit. ? {,~
S:~BZA_SPRXFORMS~pr_data'q)2-O65-~pr, ltr. doc
SPR #02-0653 Page 2
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (staff contact - Wayne Lawson 661/326-3145)
The minimum parking required for this project has been computed based on use and shall be
as follows:
Number of Parking Required
Dwellin~ Units Ratio Parking
112 Unit Apartment Complex:
a One Bedroom 24 DU's
· Two Bedrooms 72 DU's
,Three Bedrooms 16 DU's
1.5spaces/DU 36 spaces
2 spaces/DU 144 spaces
2 spaces/DU 32 spaces
Subtotal: 212 spaces
(Plus 10 percent for guest parking): 21 spaces
Total Required: 233 Spaces
(Note: 238 parking spaces are shown on the proposed site plan.)
The applicant shall include a copy of a final landscape plan with each set of the final building
plans submitted to the Building Division. In addition, one (1) copy of the landscape plan
shall also be submitted to the Planning Division. Building permits will not be issued until the
Planning Division has approved the final landscape plan for consistency with approved site
plans and minimum ordinance standards (please refer to the attached standards - Chapter
17.61).
Approved landscaping, parking, lighting, and other related site improvements shall be
installed and inspected by the Planning Division before final occupancy of any building or
site. Please schedule final inspections with the staff contact noted above.
(NOTE: Plants must match the species identified and be installed in the locations
consistent with the approved landscape plan. Otherwise, changes made without prior
approval of the Planning staff may result in the removal and/or relocation of installed
plant materials and delays in obtaining building occupancy.)
If the parking lot, including drive aisles, delivery areas, loading and unloading areas are
within 10 feet of residentially zoned property, a solid masonry wall is required to be
constructed adjacent to the residentially zoned property. This wall must be shown on the
final building plans and shall be constructed a minimum height of 6 feet as measured from
the highest adjacent finished grade. In addition, a 7-foot wide strip that includes landscaping
consistent with Chapter 17.61 shall be installed between the wall and parking/drive areas.
Parking lot lighting is required by the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Section 17.58.060A).
Illumination shall be evenly distributed across the parking area with light fixtures designed
and arranged so that light is directed downward and is reflected away from adjacent
residential properties and streets. Use of glare shields or baffles may be required for glare
reduction or control of back light. All light poles, standards and fixtures, including bases or
pedestals, shall not exceed a height of 40' above grade. The final building plans shall
include a picture or diagram of the light fixtures being used and show how light will be
directed onto the parking area.
Habitat Conservation fees shall be required for this project and will be calculated~based on
the fee in effect at the time we issue an urban development permit (includes
approvals) as defined in the Implementation/Management Agreement (Section ~21) for th~
SABZ4_SPI~FORM3~pr_data~402-O65.~pr, ltr. doc
SPR g02-0653 Page 3
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Upon payment of the fee, the applicant
will receive acknowledgment of compliance with Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan (Implementation/Management Agreement Section 3.1.4). This fee is
currently $1,240 per gross acre, payable to the City of Bakersfield (submit to the Planning
Division). This fee must be paid before any grading or other site disturbance occurs.
A Park Development and Improvement Fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is
issued. We will base this fee at the rate in effect at the time the permit is issued. The current
fee is $635 for each independent residential unit.
Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from public streets. Roof-mounted equipment is
prohibited by the Riverlakes Specific Plan.
Refuse bin enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the building (ie. same color
and materials) and are prohibited within front yard areas. Trash storage areas shall not be
visible from public streets as restricted by the Riverlakes Specific Plan.
10. The project is subject to the residential design guidelines of the Riverlakes Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measures & Conditions (GPA/ZC P01-0227)
An archaeological survey shall be completed prior to ground disturbance, along with
requiring any measures identified in the study to be completed. (Mitigation)
The developer shall be required to meet all of the California Water Service Company's
requirements for water service to the project.
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. (Mitigation)
If any human remains are discovered on the site, all work shall stop until the Kern County
Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any other amhaeological artifacts
are discovered during site development, all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated
by a qualified archaeologist or historian. (Mitigation)
The developer shall develop the area south of Hageman Road to the south section line of
Section 17, east of Riverlakes Drive to the existing "Coleman" multi-family project (18.88
gross acres) as a Low Medium Density Residential with maximum of 142 dwelling units. The
developer shall develop the area south of the south section line of Section 17, east of
Riverlakes Drive to the Open Space area along Coffee Road (21.38 gross acres) as a High
Medium Density Residential with a maximum of 403 dwelling units. (Planning
Commission)
(Note: Condition satisfied, the project is within the specified limits of units and density.)
SABZA_SP~ORM~xpr_~ta~2~.~pr, ltr. doc
SPR #02-0653
Page 4
During the review process within the project site, consultation with the Division of Oil,
Gas &Geothermal Resources shall be done to evaluate any potential impacts. (Planning
Commission)
(Note: Condition satisfied, DOGGR was consulted.)
Any development within the R-2/PUD area that is not detached single family residential shall
be processed as a Planned Unit Development. (City Council)
East of Riverlakes Drive, no theme wall shall be required for apartment development.
(City Council)
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (staff contact - Dave Weirather 661/326-3706)
1. Show on the final building plans the following items:
All fire lanes as indicated on the returned plans, or as they may be modified by the
Fire Department. Spacing between each sign identifying the fire lane must also be
shown on the final plan that meets minimum city standards. The applicant shall
install all required fire lane signs before occupancy of any building or portion of any
building is allowed.
Both offsite (nearest to site) and on-site fire hydrants with required fire flows. New
fire hydrants shall be sited and installed in accordance with the latest adopted version
of the California Fire Code. Hydrants must be in working order to assure that
adequate fire protection is available during construction unless other arrangements for
such protection are approved by the Fire Department. Please provide 2 sets of the
engineered water plans to Dave Weirather. (Note: All new fire hydrants must be
purchased from the Fire Department.)
If the project has fire sprinkler or stand pipe systems. The Fire Department will issue
guidelines for connection locations (FDC) when automatic sprinkler and stand pipe
systems are required.
Project address, including suite number if applicable. If the project is within a
shopping or business center, note the name and address of the center.
e. Name and phone number of the appropriate contact person.
The applicant must request an inspection of any underground sprinkler feeds at least 24 hours
before they are buried. The Fire Safety Control Division (1715 Chester Avenue, Suite 300,
Bakersfield, CA; Ph. 661/326-3951) must complete all on-site inspections of fire sprinkler
systems and fire alarm systems before any building is occupied.
The applicant shall show on the final building plans a 20' wide all-weather emergency access
as indicated by staff on the returned site plan. The Fire Department must approve the final
location and design of this access prior to building permits being issued. This acces&~[l~.ll be
constructed before building occupancy will be granted. ~'~
b-.
SABZA_SPR~FORM3Xrpr_data~2-O65.~*pr, ltr, doc
SPR #02-0653 Page 5
All access (permanent and temporary) to and around any building under construction must be
at least 20 feet wide, contain no vehicle obstructions, and be graded to prevent water
ponding. Barricades must be in place where ditches and barriers exist in or cross roadways.
Emergency vehicle access must always be reliable.
D. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING (staff contact -Janice Horcasitas 661/326-3576)
The applicant shall construct curbs, gutters, cross gutters, sidewalks, and street paving along
Riverlakes Drive according to adopted city standards. These improvements shall be shown
on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits
will be issued.
The applicant shall install new connection(s) to the public sewer system. This connection
shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any
building permits will be issued.
All driveways, vehicular access and parking areas shall be paved with a minimum of 2" Type
B, A.C. over 3" Class II A.B. according to the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Sections
15.76.020 & 17.58.050 N.) and the adopted standards of the City Engineer. This paving
standard shall be noted on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before
any building permits will be issued.
If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, building permits will not be issued
until the grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and Building
Division.
Before you can occupy any building or site, you must reconstruct or repair substandard off-
site improvements to adopted city standards as directed by the City Engineer. Please call the
construction superintendent at 661/326-3049 to schedule a site inspection to find out what
improvements may be required.
You must obtain a street permit from the Public Works Department before any work can be
done within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this
site plan review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit.
A sewer connection fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. We will base
this fee at the rate in effect at the time a building permit is issued.
If the project is subject to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit
to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (WQ Order No. 92-08-
DWQ) must be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the
beginning of any construction activity. Compliance with the general permit requires that a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and
always be available for public inspection during normal construction hours.
SABZA_SPR~FORM~.*pr_data~)2-O65.~pr, ltr. doc
SPR #02-0653
Page 6
A transportation impact fee for regional facilities shall be paid at the time a building permit is
issued. This fee will be based at the rate in effect at the time the permit is issued. The Public
Works Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee when you submit construction
plans for the project.
10.
The developer shall pay into the Riverlakes Planned Drainage Area or construct storm drain
facilities as required by the Planned Drainage Area.
Mitigation Measures & Conditions (GPA/ZC P01-0227)
Along with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, or application for
a lot line adjustment, the applicant shall provide fully executed dedication for Riverlakes
Drive to collector standards for the full property frontages. 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. (Public
Works Condition)
Access to Riverlakes Drive 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. (Public Works Mitigation)
The development will be subject to the current Regional Traffic Impact Fee in effect at time
of development, or to the provisions of Agreement 99-18. In the event of differing
interpretations between the Regional Traffic Impact Fee and said agreement, the provisions
of Agreement 99-18 shall prevail. (Public Works Mitigation)
E. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC (staff contact - George Gillburg 661/326-3997)
Show on the final building plans 36' wide (top-to-top) drive approach(es) as indicated by
staff on the returned site plan. Drive approaches must be centered on drive aisles. All
dimensions shall be shown on the final building plans.
Two-way drive aisles shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. If perpendicular (90°) parking
spaces are proposed where a vehicle must back into these aisles, the minimum aisle width
shall be 25 feet. All drive aisle dimensions shall be shown on the final building plans.
Show the typical parking stall dimensions on the final building plans. Minimum parking stall
dimensions shall be 9' wide x 18' long. Vehicles may hang over landscape areas no more
than 21/2 feet provided required setbacks along street frontages are maintained, and trees and
shrubs are protected from vehicles as required by the Planning Division.
SPR #02-0653 Page 7
PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (staff contact - John Wilburn 661/326-3114)
You must contact the staff person noted above before building permits can be issued or
work begins on the property to establish the level and type of service necessary for the
collection of refuse and/or recycled materials. These levels of service are based on how often
collection occurs as follows:
· Can or cart service --
· Front loader bin service --
· Roll-off compactor service --
1 cubic yard/week or less
1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day
More than 12 cubic yards/day
Show on the final building plans 5 (five), 8' x 10' refuse bin enclosures) designed according
to adopted city standards (Detail #S-43). Before occupancy of the building or site is allowed,
10 (ten), 3 cubic yard front loading type refuse bins shall be placed within the required
enclosures.
Facilities that participate in recycling operations must provide a location that is separate from
the refuse containment area. This shall be shown on the final building plans.
S:~BZA_SPI~FORM3\~pr_dat~.~pr, ltr. doc
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Stanley Grady, Planning Director
September 5, 2002
AGENDA ITEM r~. ~.
APPROVED ~
SUBJECT:
Site Plan Review No. 02-0653
Site Plan Review for the construction of a 112 unit one and two-story apartment complex
(24 one bedroom, 72 two bedroom, and 16 three bedroom units) on a 6.43+ acre site,
within an R-2/PUD (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone
district.
APPLICANT:
Jim Ward Architecture
3008 Sillect Avenue, Suite 215
Bakersfield, CA 93308
PROPERTY OWNER:
Riverlakes Enterprises LLC
1500 Haggin Oaks Boulevard, Suite 101
Bakersfield, CA 93311
LOCATION:
3900 Riverlakes Drive
(APN #: A portion of 451-010-08)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution with all findings and conditions, APPROVING the Negative
Declaration and APPROVING Site Plan Review No. 02-0653 as depicted in the project
description.
Prepared by: DR/paslAugust 20, 2002[S:lBZA_SPRIFORMS~spc datalO2-O6531Staff Report, pc. doc
P~e 1
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan review to allow a two story, 112 unit apartment
complex on a 6.43 acre site. The 112 unit complex will contain 24 one bedroom units, 72 two bedroom
nits, and 16 three bedroom units. The zoning ordinance requires 234 off street parking spaces for the
proposed apartment complex. The proposed site plan shows a total of 238 spaces. On-site amenities
proposed for the apartment complex include a 1,826 sq. ft. recreation building with a swimming pool and
landscaped open space areas.
The proposed 112 unit development on the 6.43 acre site will yield a density of 17.418 or 17.42
dwelling units per net acre which is consistent with the site's Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan Designation
of HMR (High Medium Density Residential). In addition, the proposal is consistent with the site's R-
2/PUD zoning designation.
The ingress/egress for the project site is provided by means of four separate driveway approaches
along the Riverlakes Drive frontage. Landscaping for the proposed project must meet the City's
minimum landscape standards in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.61.
The 6.43-+ acre project site was included in a previously approved/adopted General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (GPA/ZC P01-0227 - Ord. 4023, Dated 9-05-2001) which established
the current R-2/PUD zoning and HMR land use designation for the subject property. The GPA/ZC was
approved and adopted subject to conditions and mitigation measures. Some of those
conditions/mitigation measures appropriate for the proposed project and have been included as part of
the conditions of approval for SPR 02-0653.
Staff finds that this project meets the minimum development standards of the Riverlakes Specific Plan
and city's zoning ordinance, and recommends approval of the plan as submitted.
Prepared by: DR/pas ~August 20, 20021S:IBZA_SPRtFORMS~spr_datalO2-O6531Staff Report, pc. doc
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
The general plan designation, zoning and existing uses of the site and surrounding properties
are as shown in the following table:
Table I
Land Use Designations, Zoning and Land Uses of Adjacent Property
Site HMR R-2/PUD VACANT
North HMR R-2/PUD VACANT
South OS-P O-S PARK SITE
East O-C C-O VACANT
West OS-P & PS O-S & R-1 PARK SITE & Centennial High School
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in the
Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services
Building; 1715 Chester Avenue; Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the
project site were notified by United States mail on August 16, 2002, regarding this public hearing in
accordance with city ordinance and state law.
Based upon an initial environmental assessment and evaluation according to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, it
has been found that this project will not significantly affect the environment. A Negative Declaration
has been prepared and is attached to this report.
EXHIBITS: (Attached)
A
B
C
D
Vicinity Map, 300 ft. Radius Map, and Site Plan.
Negative Declaration and Initial Study.
Draft Resolution.
Conditions of Approval with Mitigation Measures.
Prepared by: DR/pas'~August 20, 2002[S:tBZA_SPRIFORMS~spr_datatO2-O6531Staff Rep°rt,pc.d°c
!
B A K E R S F I E L D
Development Services Department - Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
September 5, 2002
TO: CHAIRMAN AND IvlEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ,.~TANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 7.2 (Site Plan Review 02-0653; 3900 Riverlakes Drive)
In response to various questions raised by the Commission during Monday's pre-meeting, staff has
provided additional background as follows:
1. Commissioner Ellison asked about a well site near the property, what type of well is it, what is
happening to it, and is it located on the project site.
The well is on the project site near its northern boundary. It is an agricultural water well that is
being abandoned by the developer in accordance with current codes. This abandonment also
includes the removal of a standpipe and tank. There are no petroleum wells on the site though a
referral was sent to DOGGR for their review of the proposed development.
Commissioner Tragish asked about getting a map of the Riverlakes area with street names. He
also requested a map showing this project site as it relates to single family development
occurring to the north.
A map of the Riverlakes neighborhoods where the multiple family development is occurring
between Olive Drive and Centennial High School (lake area) is attached with all street names
and current zoning. A tract map (No. 6005) is attached showing the project site and its
relationship with the single family development that is occurring to the north.
3. Commissioner Sprague asked about the build out for the area and the basic traffic circulation
system approved for the Riverlakes area.
Included are two maps from the Riverlakes Specific Plan, the concept land use plan and
circulation plan. The land use plan shows a table that indicates a maximum build out of 4,335
dwelling units for that portion of the plan west of Coffee Road. In evaluating aerial photographs
taken in January, 2002, staff calculated that approximately 2,300 single family homes exist in the
entire Riverlakes Ranch specific plan area (both east and west of Coffee Road).
370 additional multiple family units also exist in the plan area. Staff estimates that Riverlakes is
approximately 75-80% built out. ?7~erefore, based on the land use assumptions in the table, the
overall number and density of dwelling units will be considerably less than planned. This is due
predominately to the fact that many areas originally set aside for multiple family developments
has been developed as single family. This is evidenced by the single family development
occurring immediately north r~f the project site zoned R-2/PUD which could sustain a higher
number of units and density if developed as the plan and zoning would allow. Also attached is a
circulation plan map showing the planned circulation system that was designed and built in the
Riverlakes area.
Exhibits:
A - Riverlakes Ranch Lake Area Neighborhoods map
B - Tract Map 6006
C - Concept Land Use map (enlarged land use table follows)
D - Circulation Plan (with street legend)
JE
\
\
!
/
/
OLIVE
/
/
// II R-i
/
/
{not to
iR.
' -'RIVERLAKES RANCH
LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOODS
[o)
R-I
/
/
o~(
OS
R-2
R-I
(a)
OS~.
R-Ito) /~'"
R-I <o) R-2
' '~. R-2
R-I
I C-I
I
,+
SUMMARY
h
CONCEPT LAND
USE PLAN
RIVERLAKES RANCH SPEi~IFIC PL~
Bakersfield; Californ~
--OS-P
SUMMARY
ACRES
0WELLING
UNIT~
RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (aR) II1.0
Single Family Detached
Z6,4.53
LOW OENalT¥
81ngle Femay Ootcahecf
LOW-MEDIUM OEN~IIT¥ (LMR)
Single Family Oetcehed
HIGH-MEDIUM DENSITY (HMR) 9009
800
HI<3H DENSITY (H~)
22,16
TOTAL RESIOENTIAL 686,66
OEN$1TY
Lm TO 4.0
UP TO 7.2S
UP TO 10
UP TO 17.42
UP TO Zg
NON-RESIDENTIAL
' O$-P
COMMERCIAL 19h21
Major Commeralel 12L0
General Cmr{lll ~71
Office ~3.5
CONSERVATION/RECREATION
Public Plrkl 40.4
Laka (Im~l~d~c Beach C1~) 24.0
18 Hole Golf Co~le 21~0
~O 81to
PIJ~LK~ FACIUTY 77.0
$chooll
CIRCULATION ~O,O
LJGHT t/~U~TRIAL I I.L~
TOTAL NON-REalOENTIAL 696. ~4
LOW DENSITY LOW DENSITY
CIRCULATION PLAN
- LEGEND
ARTERIAL (without bikeway)
110' R.O.W.
L~ 6' Landscape Easement
6',Sidewalk Including curb
10 Parkway
ARTERIAL (with bikeway in paved area)
110' R.O.W.
6' Sidewalk Including curb
COLLECTOR (without bikeway)
90' R,O.W.
6' Sidewalk Including curb
B' Parkway
COLLECTOR (with bikeway in paved area)
90' R.O.W.
6' Landscape Eeeement
6' Sidewalk including curb
8' Parkway
COLLECTOR-Alternate Section
90' R,O.W,
mitt I
11' min. - 27' max.
6' Meandering sidewalk
LOCAL COLLECTOR
60' R.O.W.
, 44' ~ $' Landscape Easement
I 6' Sidewalk Including curb
8' F~arkwsy
RIV£RLAKE$ B^NCH SPECIFIC PLAN
Bakersfield, California
EXH~ 11-A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
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 Bakersfield's CEQA
Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT NO. (or Title):
Site Plan Review No. 02-0653
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. (if required): N/A
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS:
August16,2002
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS:
September 5, 2002
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Mitigation related to this project has been carried over from General Plan/Zone Change No. P01-
0227 as follows:
Mitigation Measures & Conditions
(Revised 8/22/01)
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/
RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
No. P01-0227
An archaeological survey shall be completed prior to ground disturbance, along with requiring any
measures identified in the study to be completed. (Mitigation)
The developer shall be required to meet all of the California Water Service Company's
requirements for water service to the project. (Mitigation)
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. (Mitigation)
If any human remains are discovered on the site, 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. (Mitigation)
Along with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, or application for a lot
line adjustment, the applicant shall provide fully executed dedication for Riverlakes Drive to
collector standards for the full property frontages. 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. (Public Works Condition)
Page I of 19
10.
11.
Access to Rivellakes Drive 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. (Public Works Mitigation)
The development will be subject to the current Regional Traffic Impact Fee in effect at time of
development, or to the provisions of Agreement 99-18. In the event of differing interpretations
between the Regional Traffic Impact Fee and said agreement, the provisions of Agreement 99-18
shall prevail. (Public Works Mitigation)
The developer shall develop the area south of Hageman Road to the south section line of Section
17, east of Riverlakes Drive to the existing "Coleman" multi-family project (18.88 gross acres) as a
Low Medium Density Residential with maximum of 142 dwelling units. The developer shall
develop the area south of the south section line of Section 17, east of Riveriakes Drive to the
Open Space area along Coffee Road (21.38 gross acres) as a High Medium Density Residential
with a maximum of 403 dwelling units. (Planning Commission)
(Note: The project is within the specified limits of dwelling units and density.)
During the review process within the project site, consultation with the Division of Oil, Gas &
Geothermal Resources shall be done to evaluate any potential impacts. (Planning Commission)
(Note: DOGGR was consulted.)
Any development within the R-2/PUD area that is not detached single family residential shall be
processed as a Planned Unit Development. (City Council)
East of Riverlakes Drive, no theme wall shall be required for apartment development. (City
Council)
Page 2 of 19
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
10.
Project No. (or Title):
Lead Agency (name and address):
Site Plan Review No. 02-0653
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Contact Person (name, title, phone):
Dave Reizer
(661) 326-3673
Project Location:
Applicant (name and address):
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
3900 Riverlakes Drive
Jim Ward Architecture
3008 Sillect Avenue, Suite 215
Bakersfield, CA 93308
{661 ) 664-2760
HMR (High Medium Density Residential)
R-2/PUD (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit
Development)
Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):
Site Plan Review for the construction of a 112 unit one and two-stow apartment complex (24 one
bedroom, 72 two bedroom, and 16 three bedroom units) on a 6.43+ acre site.
Environmental setting (briefly descrtbe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):
The subject property is located in northwest Bakersfield west of Coffee Road and east/north of
Riverlakes Drive. The site is generally level, vacant land.
Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or
participation agreement):
City of Bakersfield Building Department - building permits and grading approvals.
City of Bakersfield Public Works Department - street permit.
Kern County Environmental Health - public pool permit
Page 3 of 19 ~
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
[] Mineral Resources
[] Public Services
[] Utilities / Service Systems
[] Agricultural Resources
[] Cultural Resources
[] Hydrology / Water Quality
[] Noise
[] Recreation
[] Air Quality
[] Geology / Soils
[] Land Use / Planning
[] Population / Housing
[] Transportation / Traffic
[] Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
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 by the 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 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 (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier
environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative
declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, nothing further is required.
~'~~e~ ~ ~-. Auqust 5, 2002Date
Dave Reizer
Printed name
Page 4 of 19
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
(t)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources 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 screemng analysis).
(2) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a)
b)
the significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question: and
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
(3)
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.
(4)
Once it has been 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.
(5)
The "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." Mitigation measures will be identified with a brief explanation of how they will
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures may be cross-referenced).
(6)
Earlier analyses may be used where, according 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)
b)
c)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document according to applicable legal standards. State
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on this earlier analysis.
Mitiqation 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.
(7)
(8)
It is encouraged that information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances)are
incorporated into the checklist references. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
A source list is attached, including a description of sources used or individuals contacted that are cited in
the discussion.
Page 5 of 19
Environmental leeue
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, frees, rock outcrops,
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? []
tl. 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 contribule 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 iecal 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, coastai, 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 an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the []
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree []
preservation policy or ordinance?
sPR ~o o2-o~53 Page 6 of 1 9
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
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:
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 §15064.57 []
) 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, injup/, 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 & Geology
Special Publication No.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? []
d) Be leoated on expansive soil, as defined in the city's most recently adopted Uniform
Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? []
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. HAZ.,I~IDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transporL
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 schcol? []
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 inter[ere with an adopted emergency response plan []
or emergency evacuation plan?
sPR~ o~-o~ Page 7 of 19
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
Less Than
Potentially Significant LeSS Than
Significant With Mglgation Significant No
Impact incorporation In,pact Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land
fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality slandards or waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intedere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that them 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
lo a level which would nut support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage patlern 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
storm water 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? []
) Ptace 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 loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? []
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? []
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? []
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? []
) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan? []
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 lecally-important mineral resource recovery site that is
delineated in 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 ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels? []
c) A substantial permanent increase in am blent noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? []
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in am bient ooise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? []
Page 8 of 19
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
Aug~5, 2002
Environmental Issue
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 expose
people residing or working in the project area fo 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 (e.g., by proposing new
homes & businesses) or indirectly (e.g. 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? []
XlII. 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:
i) Fire protection? []
ii) Police protection? []
iii) Schools? []
iv) Parks? []
v) Other public facilities? []
XlV. 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? []
XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC. 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 transporlation (e.g-, []
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RegionalWater Quality
Control Board? []
SPRNo02-O~5$ Page 9 of 19
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
[] [] ·
August'S. 2~02
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? [] []
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? [] []
XVlI. 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?
[] ·
[] ·
[] ·
Page 1Ocr 19
HI~ INAJ¢~
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST
1. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern COG,
Golden Empire Transit, March 1990.
2. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern,
KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989.
3. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield
and Kern County, March 1991.
4. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)(1)(B) and 2081
permits, 1994.
5. Bakersfield Municipal Code.
6. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures.
7. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan.
8. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan
9. Kern County, California - Soil survey.
10. Kern County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.
11. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan (below Lake Isabella).
12. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District - Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality
Impacts.
13. State of California Public Resources Code.
14. State of California Government Code.
15. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
16. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986).
17. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas.
18. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
19. Riverlakes Specific Plan.
Pagellof 19
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Site Plan Review No. 02-0653
I. AESTHETICS
The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5 percent. The area is substantially
developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan as visually
important or scenic. No scenic vista will be negatively impacted by construction of this project. Therefore,
the effect is insignificant.
The project does not include the destruction of any known scenic resources or historic building. The
project is not adjacent to a state scenic highway. Therefore, the effect is not significant.
As with any new development, visual changes will occur to the environmental setting. The proposed
project is typical of area development and will be compatible with surrounding uses. No significant
impacts related to the visual setting are noted.
This project involves incremental growth of urban development typical of the area. Light from this
development will 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. Therefore, this impact is not regarded as significant.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The project does not any farmlands designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide significance to
nonagricultural uses, (source: Department of Conservation Kern County Interim - Farmland 1996, sheet 2
of 3). No significant impacts are noted.
The property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor is it under a Williamson Act Contract. Adjacent
properties that may be zoned residential have special setback requirements to minimize conflicts between
agricultural uses and urban residents (refer to Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.150). No
significant impacts are noted.
The project site has no special attributes in relation 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 and encouraged in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature,
result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No significant impacts are noted.
III. AIR
QUALITY
a. The Southern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 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 to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality
Impacts promulgated by Southern 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 zoning and building ordinance requirements, and general plan policies 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. This project is subject to all local ordinances which ensure
compliance with these air quality strategies· Implementation of these ordinances and rules will reduce
impacts to less than significant·
b. The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 24, table 4-1 of the Ozone
Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year, Nox 10 tons (Guide to
Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts). The project is also not 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). Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in
the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by Southern San Joaquin Valley A r Po ution Control Dist~i~ ~a~t/
sufficient mitigation to reduce PM~0 impacts (dur ng construction) to ess than a signif cant level:;~ ·
Page 12 of 19 :
The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the Southern San Joaquin Valley is in non-
attainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by Southern San Joaquin Valley 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 planning
area. Mitigation from the referenced environmental document(s) are incorporated into the city's various
policies, implementation measures and ordinances. Therefore, the impact is not regarded as significant.
No evidence exists 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 highly congested street
intersections. Since there are no adjacent intersections which are at a level of service "F", or will the
project reduce an intersection to a level of service "F", no significant pollutant "hot spot" impacts are
identified for this project.
The land use proposed 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 (please refer to the list in table 4-2, Southern San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). No significant impacts are noted.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The project would not affect any known biological resources. However, 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 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. The impact is not regarded as significant.
b. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area, but is within the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. This plan, in agreement with the
California Department of Fish and Game and the United States 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.
c. The project crosses no stream, either perennial or intermittent based on the United States Geological
Survey topographic sheet for the area. In addition, no flora or fauna typically associated with wetlands,
nor does the site contain any "Federally Protected Wetlands". No significant impacts are noted.
d. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), nor is it 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 that the
project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No significant impacts are noted.
e. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) has been adopted as policy and is
implemented by ordinance. The proposed development will be required to comply with this plan and,
therefore, will not be in conflict with the HCP, the City's General Plan, or any other local biological policy or
ordinance. No significant impacts are noted.
f. No other adopted plans that relate to biological resources are applicable to this area (refer to item IV. e
above).
V. CULTURALRESOURCES
SPR NO 02.0~53
a. The site contains no structures or resources that are 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.), nor are any structures or resources
listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resource
Code). Therefore, no significant impacts are noted.
Page 13 of 19
b. The site area is in an urban setting that has been previously disturbed from adjacent development, utility
installation, street construction, and installation of other urban-related improvements. Therefore,
additional surveys or studies of the site are not necessary, in the event significant (as defined in CEQA)
archeological resources or adifacts are discovered during project construction, the developer will be
required to retain a qualified archeologist (or a historian if appropriate) to evaluate the significance of the
finding and take appropriate action subject to the requirements of CEQA, including consultation with the
California Archaeological Inventory at California State University Bakersfield. The impact is not regarded
as significant.
c. 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 the event significant (as defined in CEQA)
paleontological resources or artifacts are discovered during project construction, the developer will be
required to retain a qualified archeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and
take appropriate action subject to the requirements of CEQA. In addition, because the topography of the
site is relatively flat, no evidence exists that construction of the project wilt destroy any unique geologic
structure. Therefore, no significant impacts are noted.
d. No evidence exists that the project is located within an area likely to produce human remains. If any
human remains are discovered, as required by existing state law, 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.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i. 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. Because of the relatively flat topography of the project site,
landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard.
a.ii. See answer to Vl.a.i.
a.iii. 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 Vll.a.i.
a.iv. See answer to Vl.a.i.
The soil types prevalent on the proposed site are listed in the Kern County California Soil Survey for the
Northwestern region. Based on the soil survey, the project site includes soil type 196-Milham Sandy
Loam, 0-2 Percent slopes. The characteristics of this soil type (196-Milham Sandy Loam, 0-2 percent
slopes) include deep, well-drained soils found on alluvial fans, plains, and Iow terrances, formed in
alluvium derived dominantly from granite and sedimentary rock. However, due to the urban nature of the
site relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of
soils or soil expansion problems. The use of septic systems is not anticipated as the project will connect
to the City's municipal sewage disposal system. The project will be subject to City ordinances and
standards relative to soils and geology. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) foundation
design requ rements nclude a detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance .... of building per~i[s~nd
adherence to other applicable regulations ~n the UBC. Therefore, the effect ~s not s~gmhcant.~.,~.
Page 14 of 19 ,~ Au~15,2002
0RIGIN~t
See answers to Vl.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.
d. See answer to Vl.b.
e. See answer to Vl.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 having the potential to be a significant
environmental impact.
b. See answer to VII.a,
c. No evidence exists that this project would be identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to
emit hazardous emissions at a level that is potentially significant.
d. The project site is not located in the most recent catalogued hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. No significant impact is anticipated.
This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions within the adopted Kern
County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. No significant impact is anticipated.
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. The Kern County Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Plan (1993) uses this 5,000 foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No
significant impact is anticipated.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan
(January 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at
the local level in response to some hazardous materials incident. The proposed project could introduce
substances typical of a mixed-use planned community. However, hazardous waste facility 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 nor is it within the area covered by the Hillside
Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the Kern County Fire Department to address
the issue of wild land fires and urban development. No significant impacts are anticipated.
VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standards and
waste discharge requirements of the City's NPDES Permit, which will ensure that the quality and quantity
of surface water flowing from the site would not substantially affect groundwater quality. No significant
impact is anticipated.
b. The proposed development will 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. Water utility companies that serve the project
area are anticipated to be able to serve the project's needs. The appropriate water utility company may
require the project applicant to provide minor water system improvements to service the site, but this
impact is not regarded as significant.
c. No streams or rivers exist on the project site. Existing drainage patterns wilt not be significantly altered.
All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved
drainage plan that avoids on-site and off-site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. This imp~a~t'~,x
significant. .~ '~'~j
Page 15 of 19 ORiGi~,/~?~'~.2oo2
d. See answer to Vlll.c.
e. See answer to VIII.c.
f. See answer Vlll.a.
g. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps or any other flood hazard map. No significant impact is noted.
h. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No significant impact is
noted.
The proposed 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 Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
(Safety Element). Although the project is within the inundation area, 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 Head
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).
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 significant impact is noted.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern as an in fill project in the
Riverlakes area. It does not physically divide any existing neighborhood or community (refer to the
environmental setting at the beginning of this document). Therefore, no significant impacts are noted.
The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, the
Riverlakes Specific Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. Conflicts or inconsistencies have
not been identified which would be contrary to the adopted policies or ordinances. The proposal meets all
minimum ordinance and specific plan requirements. The number of proposed units is within the density
limitations of the HMR land use designation and the R-2/PUD zone district (112 units/6.43+ acres = 17.42
units/ac). Therefore, no significant impacts are noted.
c. See answer to IV.a.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral
resources, (see figure V-3 in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, Conservation Element).
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. The impact is not regarded as
significant.
b. There is no evidence in the record of this project that any noise impacts associated with ground bourne
vibration or noise will be evident. No significant impacts are noted.
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 proj,e~c,~ i~s
not antic pated to expose people to severe noise levels and existing ordinance requirements will
noise ~mpacts to ess than s gn f cant.
sPR~ o2-o~_ Page 16 of 19
Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic) increase of ambient
noise levels. Regulations exist in the Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding construction noise so that it will
not adversely affect area residents. This temporary change in ambient noise levels has not been found to
be significant and enforcement of the existing ordinance will reduce any impact to less than significant.
This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted Kern County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (also see discussion in item Vll.e. and f.). No impact is identified.
This project is not located within 5,000 feet of any private airstrip and therefore does not have the
potential to cause significant noise impacts (source: Kern County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan -
also see discussion in item VII.e. and f.).
XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant
as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an in fill project. Please refer to
the project description of the proposed land uses.
b. The project does not propose the displacement of any existing housing. No significant impacts are noted.
c. The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No significant impacts are noted.
XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES
a.i. 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 new residents and/or new structures
into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to
maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid
for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
a.ii. Police protection will be provided bythe Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current
City Police services standards require 1.32 officers for every 1,000 people in the city. The projected
increase of new residents into the City may necessitate the addition of law enforcement officers to
maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property
taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
a. iii. The project will not impact school facilities to a significant degree. Any population increases 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.
a.iv. The project proposes an increase in population of within the area which may result in an impact upon the
quality and/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 North Bakersfield Recreation and Park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people.
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. This project includes on-
site recreational facilities which includes a recreation building with a work-out room and a swimming pool.
Therefore, the impact is not considered significant.
a.v. 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. However, this potential
increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed
significant.
XIV. RECREATION
SPR No 02 0~53
See answer to Xlll.a.
See answer to Xlll.a.
Page 17 of 19 ~-
XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. The proposed project will result in an increase in traffic, which will not be substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system. A traffic analysis has not been required for
this proposal as a new collector road (Riverlakes Drive) is being constructed to accommodate traffic to
area arterial roads (Hageman Road to the north and Coffee Road to the east). The impacts of the
proposal will be reduced to a less than significant level through a City ordinance requirement that all on-
site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this development be mitigated. All regional traffic
impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated according to the regional impact fee ordinance at
the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, local ordinances require the installation of all on-site
street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements.
b. The project must comply with the policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan which requires a
level of service standard of C or better. This level of service is higher than what is required bythe local
Congestion Management Plan which requires a level of service standard D or better. Therefore, since the
level of service will exceed the minimum standard in the Congestion Management Plan, the impact is not
regarded as significant.
c. The project does not propose air traffic or impact air traffic patterns. No significant impacts are noted.
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 significant impacts are noted.
e. 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 before construction can begin. No
significant impacts are noted.
f. The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use be provided. No
significant parking impacts specific to this project have been identified.
g. 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 pad is used to
support local mass transit programs.
XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. This project will be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system and will meet the requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. No potentially significant impacts have been identified.
b. The proposed development will 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. The service provider may require additional
mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
c. Most new developments require the construction of new storm water facilities, the construction of which is
typically an extension of the existing system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a
significant impact.
d. The proposed development will not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter
the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of water utilities may be required to serve this
development, but the impact is not considered significant. The service provider may require additional
mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
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 significant impact is noted.
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 significant impact is noted.
Page 18 of 19 ~_~
XVI.
The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter
control or solid waste disposal. No significant impact is noted.
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 2801 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively.
Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level which is less than significant. In addition,
according to Section 15064 (h) ef 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
adopted Metropolitan Habitat Conservation Plan meets that definition. Therefore, the proposal will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
As noted in the previous responses, no impacts have been identified for the proposal that would be
defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is consistent with city ordinances
and general plan policies. Therefore, this effect is not considered significant.
As noted in the previous responses, no environmental effects have been identified that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings. Compliance with ordinance standards, general plan policies
and required mitigation measures will reduce any effect to less than significant.
spR~o o2-o~5~_ Page 19 of 19
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include County):
Site Plan Review No. 02-0653
3900 Riverlakes Drive, Bakersfield/CA/Kern
Project Description:
Site Plan Review for the construction of a 112 unit one and two-story apartment complex (24 one
bedroom, 72 two bedroom, and 16 three bedroom units) on a 6.43+ acre site a R-2/PUD (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development) zone district.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
No evidence was presented before the City of Bakersfield that indicated significant impacts on
wildlife resources could occur as a result of the project.
Based upon an initial environmental assessment, it has been determined the proposed project
will not significantly affect the physical environment or existing residential develnpment in
the area and the issuing of a negative declaration for the project is adequate.
No evidence has been presented to indicate that the proposed project will have potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
The site is surrounded by urban development and has been rough graded in preparation for
development.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above findings and that the project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code.
David E. Reizer, Assistant Planner ~'~-~~~-~
(Planning Official) ~ x.
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield
Date: Aueust 5, 2002