Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 179-02RESOLUTION NO. ~, 7 9" 0 2 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DISAPPROVING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO DIMINISH BRUNDAGE LANE IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on Monday, April 1, 2002 and Thursday, April 4, 2002, Monday, April 15, 2002 and Thursday, April 18, 2002, Monday, May 13, 2002 and Thursday, May 16, 2002, Monday, June 3, 2002 and Thursday, June 6, 2002 on General Plan Amendment P01-1025 of a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to change Brundage Lane from an arterial to a collector. Notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 on the above described General Plan Amendment P01-1025 of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, for the above described General Plan Amendment P01-1025 at the hearing of August 21, 2002, the Council referred the amendment to the Urban Development Committee; and WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment P01-1025 of the proposed amendment to Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: General Plan Amendment P01-1025 The City of Bakersfield Public Works Department is requesting a General Plan Amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the Circulation Element designation of Brundage Lane between Wible Road/Oak Street and the intersection of Brundage Lane and Edison Highway from "arterial to collector" (Exhibit "1 "); 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 WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CECA and City of Bakersfield's CECA implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by the city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 71-02 on, June 6, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of a modified version of the Public Works Department's original version of General Plan Amendment P01-1025 and this Council has fully considered the finding made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that only the segment of Brundage Lane between Wible Road/Oak Street and Union Avenue have the circulation designation changed from arterial to collector (Exhibit "2"); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 on the above described General Plan Amendment P01-1025 of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed. Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in accordance with CECA. The project, as recommended by the Planning Commission, is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses. The project as, recommended by the Planning Commission, is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, The proposed amendment will change the right-of-way width from arterial to collector to arterial etc. status at numerous locations along the Brundage Lane alignment thus creating traffic bottlenecks. The proposed amendment would be unfair to property owners who have dedicated property and installed improvements for the purpose of making Brundage Lane an arterial. 2 Maintaining Brundage Lane as an arterial preserves a needed arterial to accommodate future traffic. Greater development density along Brundage Lane will be accommodated by an arterial. 10. The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices do not justify the amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 11. Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711 of the Sate of California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the above-reference absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct. The Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment P01-1025 is hereby approved and adopted. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council, is hereby received and accepted. The City Council hereby disapproves General Plan Amendment P01-1025 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, as shown on the map marked Exhibit "2", attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for Brundage Lane generally located between Wible Road/Oak Street and the intersection of Union Avenue and Brundage Lane. ......... 000 ........ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on OCT l $ ZOOZ , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MACGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBE~ COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Cerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED OCT 1 6 2002 HARVEY L HALL MAYOR of the City of Bakemfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: ~.,,~/~ z..,J~ RED 4 ) ROAD · ' 8OUTH FAIRFA3 i ZC ROAD i ITl Z ITl .. ~ ZC EXHIBIT "B" NEGATIVE DECLARATION tI A I( E R S F I E I, D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield The hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the matter may be heard on MONDAY,APRIL 1, 2002, in the Council Chambers, City Hall The Monday portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only No action to approve or deny this project will be taken on Monday The hearing will be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY,APRIL 4, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, to consider the following request: 1. The project to be considered: General Plan Amendment P01-1025 Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the designation of Brundage Lane from Arterial to Collector. 2. Project location: Subject site is Brundage Lane between the intersection of Brundage Lane and Wible Road/Oak Street and the intersection of Brundage Lane and Edison Highway. 3. The name and address of the project applicant: City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at the same time and place bv the Planning Commission to receive input from the public on the potential effect of this project on the e~vironment Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impact of the proposed project. This study has shown that the proposal (as mitigated) will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration is proposed. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public through the Planning Department located at 1715 Chester Avenue. For information concerning this project contact Marian Shaw in the Public Works building located at 1501 Truxtun Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (661) 326-3724, or by e-mailing the department at mshaw(~..ci bakersfield ca.us Our website address is ci bakersfield ca us PUBLIC COMMENT regarding the proposed project and/or adequacy of the Negative Declaration, including requests for additional environmental review, will be accepted in writing on or before the hearing date indicated above at the Planninq Department located at 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. If you challenge the action taken on this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Bakersfield prior to the close of the hearing. DATED: March 1, 2002 POSTED: March 1,2002 STANLEY C. GRADY \ Planning Director RED "~'~ ' February 25, 2002 - S:\Dole\P01-1025\PC NOPH wpd Dennis C. Fidler Building Dire(~or (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director March 1, 2002 Stanley C. Grady Planning Director (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 Dear Property Owner or Other Interested Party: You are being sent the attached notice because the Kern County tax records indicate you own property in a proposed project area or within 300 feet of a proposed project (see attached map), or you have specifically requested this notice be sent to you. The attached notice describes the proposed project and draft environmental document the City of Bakersfield is currently processing. Through this notice, we are reforming you of your opportunity to comment either in favor or against the proposed projecl. You should express your comments at the public hearing indicated on the attached notice. However, if you are unable to attend this hearing, you may submit written comments to this department or contact me by telephone prior to the hearing so that your comments can be considered by the Plamfing Conunission. Sincerely, Richard Dole Associate Planner RD:djl S:\Dole\P01 1025\PropowncrP01 1025wpd City of Bakersfield ° 171 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301 Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director March 1,2002 Stanley C. Grady Planning Director (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 TO: SUBJECT: Responsible or Other Interested Agency Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Negative Declaration for the project identified in the attached initial Study. We would appreciate the views of your agency as to the scope, content and adequacy of the environmental information which is applicable to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use this Negative Declaration when considering any permits or other approvals needed for this project. In order to review and consider your comments on this project, please send your response no later than 20 days after receipt of this notice to Richard Dole, the project planner assigned to this case, at the address indicated above. In your response, please include the name of the contact person in your agency. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the California Government Code, notice is hereby given that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield. Said hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the matter may be heard on MONDAY, April 1, 2002, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Monday portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or deny this project will be taken on Monday. The hearing will be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, April 4, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301. For more information, please call the department at (805) 326-3733. Sincerely, Richard Dole Associate Planner RD:djl s\formskal City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California ° 93301 NEW STIN~ ROAD ITl Z m APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form INITIAL STUDY Project Title: General Plan Amendment P01-1025 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield Planning Depadment 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Contact Person and Phone Number: Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV (661) 326-3724 Project Location: Brundage Lane between Wible Road/Oak Street and Edison Road/Brundage Lane intersection (Attachment "B"). Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Bakersfield Public Works Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 General Plan Designation: Arterial Zoning: N/A (Note: General Plan designations are shown on Attachment "C"). Description of Project: Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the designation of Brundage Lane from "arterial" to "collector. This segment of Brundage Lane (Wible Road/Oak Street and Edison Road/Brundage Lane intersection) proposed to be changed from arterial to collector is approximately seven and three-fourths miles in length. (See item number 4 above for location). Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Brundage Lane has been divided into segments with each segment having a predominant land use along the north and south sides of the roadway. These segments are as follows: Oak StreetJVVible Road to Chester Avenue (approximately one mile) - predominantly commercial with some offices and single-family residences; Chester Avenue to Union Avenue (approximately one mile) - Almost exclusively commercial with very few residences: Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road/Lakeview Avenue (one mile) - predominantly commercial with single-family dwellings, industrial, churches and undeveloped land; Cottonwood Road/Lakeview Road to Oswell Street (two miles) - primarily industrial and undeveloped land with commercial, church and a post office; Oswell Street to Fairfax Road (one mile) - commercial, residential and churches; Fairfax Road to State Route-184 (one mile) - primarily industrial with commercial, residences, a church and undeveloped land; and No impact. .: -" Febru~,~ 5, 2002 State Route-184 to ~-dison Highway (approximately ~ mile) - primarily undeveloped land with commercial, a recreational vehicle park and a orange grove. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): Kern County 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: E~ Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources [] Cuttural Resources [] Geology / Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology ! Water Quality [] Land Use ! Planning [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population / Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation / Traffic [] Utilities / Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to 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 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. S,~fnature Printed name I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~ate ~ For Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but [] not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or [] quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which [] would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or [] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Ill. 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: [] [] Potentially Significant Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [] substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of [] any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [] concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial [] number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporation impact No Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 4 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological [] resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred [] outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [] [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No Impact 5 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately suppoding the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Potentially Significant Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [] would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with [] an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, [] injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant With Mitigation incorporation Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Potentially Significant Impact project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [] substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-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 mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant Impact [] [] No impact 7 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [] resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important [] mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Xl. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in [] excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [] groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise [] levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in [] ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan [] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airpod or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [] would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [] [] 8 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: ~) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant impact No Impact Xlll, PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] .XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATIONFFRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [] [] [] [] 10 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Lass Than Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No Impact XVII. 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 impodant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Revised March 23, 2000 S:\Dole\P01-1025~Appendix G Check List.wpd 11 APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form Response Sheet Initial Study General Plan Amendment P01-1025 AESTHETICS The project site is located within an area having natural slopes from 0-5%. The area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan as visually important or "scenic". There is no scenic vista that would be impacted by the redesignation of Brundage Lane from arterial to collector. No impact. The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to a state highway which is designated as "scenic". No significant impacts are noted. No impact. There are no visual impacts associated with this project, the project does not involve any construction. This project will change the Circulation Element designation from arterial to collector. No impact. This project does not involve incremental growth of urban development typical of the area. Nor will this project generate light at night or daytime. No impact. II AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The project does not convert 100 acres or more of any of the farmlands designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. The subject site, Brundage Lane, is a paved roadway and will not impact agricultural production. No impact. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor is it under Williamson Act Contract. The subject site, Brundage Lane, is a paved roadway and will not impact agricultural production. No impact. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The subject site, Brundage Lane, is a paved roadway and will not impact agricultural production. No impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 2 III AIR QUALITY The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles which are the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality Impacts promulgated by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, (page 16 and section 6)list various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan requirements related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements, location of commercial development in proximity to residential development are consistent with the listed strategies. This project is subject to the full range of local ordinances which ensure compliance with these air quality strategies. No significant impacts are noted. No impact. The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 24 table 4-1 Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year, Nox 10 tons (Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts). Nor is the project within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, "Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts). In addition, dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII are required for all construction in the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM-10 impacts to less than a significant level. No impact. The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the Southern San Joaquin Valley is in nonattainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Pollution from this project was taken into consideration in previous environmental analysis which took into account that this area would be urban. This analysis was completed for the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report which identified the amount of urbanization and resultant air pollution which would be generated within the general plan area. Mitigation from the Final Environmental Impact Report was incorporated into various policies, implementation measures and ordinances. In addition, no adverse comments were received from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on this project. No impact. There is no evidence that this project creates any pollutant "hot spot" that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution receptors. The only potential "hot spots" are located at intersections which are "seve.r~!y7 Appendix G Project Title Page 3 congested. There are no adjacent intersections which are at a level of service "F" and therefore by definition no significant pollutant "hot spot" impacts are identified for this project. No impact. The land use permitted as a result of this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This proposal is not on the list of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems (for the list of projects please see table 4-2, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). No impact. IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United State Fish and Wildlife Services and California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level which is less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h) of the CEQA Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted, is an enforceable standard that meets the definition of Section 15064(h)(3). No impact. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area but does fall within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Wildlife Service mandates certain requirements that by ordinance all development projects must comply. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level. No impact. The project crosses no stream, either perennial or intermittent based on the United States Geological Survey topographic sheet for the area. No impact. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or along a canal which has been identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Services as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no..,,'.. -: Appendix (3 Project Title Page 4 evidence in the record that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No impact. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and therefore will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. No impact. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources, see answer to IV e above. No impact. V CULTURAL RESOURCES Brundage Lane is a paved roadway having two to four lanes. This roadway is not 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.). Brundage Lane is not listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resource Code is not found to be a significant historical resource meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. No impact. The Initial Study will be transmitted to the California Archaeological Inventory at California State University Bakersfield for review. Any comment and/or mitigation measure received from the "university" regarding this project will be placed in the staff report. No impact. This project is not located in the Shark Tooth Mountain bone bed which is the only unique paleontological resource identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. In addition, topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No impact. In the event that the California State Inventory at California State University Bakersfield determines there is evidence that human remains are located under Brundage Lane pavement and its right-of-way such evidence shall be incorporated into the staff report and attached to the Initial Study as mitigation. In the future, if any construction work is being effected to Brundage Lane and human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered during such work. all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian. No impact. ,,,,,~ _ ,, Appendix G Project Title Page 5 VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Bakersfield, located in the San Joaquin Valley, has been a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these fault systems are the San Andreas, the Breckenridge-Kern County, the Garlock, the Pond Poso and the White Wolf. There are numerous additional faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and earthquake induced landslides. No impact. It is unlikely that future structures will be constructed within the Brundage Lane right-of-way. However, the two lane segments of Brundage Lane may be constructed to four lanes in the future. Such construction will be to current engineer and seismic standards. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In addition, because of the relatively fiat topography of the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard. No impact. a.ii. See answer to VI.ai. Liquefaction potential is a combination of soil type, ground water depth and seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to a VII i. No impact. a.iv. See answer to VI.a i. Brundage Lane between Wible Road/Oak Street and Edison Road/Brundage Lane intersection is approximately seven and three-fourths miles in length, containing numerous soil types. The soil types are to numerous to be listed here. Soils are covered by pavement two and four lanes wide. The soil types located under the Brundage Lane pavement and along its right- of-way are listed in the Kern County California Soil Survey for the Northwestern region. This survey is located in the City of Bakersfield Planning Department and may be reviewed during regular office hours. No impact. See answers to VI a i and VI a ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Intedor Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard. No Appendix G Project Title Page 6 impact. See answer to VI b. See answer to VI b. VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There is no evidence in the record which indicates this project (or this type of land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to be a significant environmental impact. No impact. b. See answer to VII a. There is no evidence that this project or this category of projects has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous emissions at a level which is potentially significant. No impact. This project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact. Brundage Lane is located within Zone C of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, as shown in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Zone C is defined as the area where aircraft are commonly below 1,000 above ground level. Inappropriate uses in Zone C include but are not limited to schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Normally accepted uses in Zone C include but are not limited to parks, playgrounds, most retail uses, duplexes, medium density apartments and two story apartments. Zone C extends approximately 9,000 feet north of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport runway. Brundage Lane is located approximately 7,000 feet north of such runway. No Impact. The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip and it is therefore presumed not to have any land use impacts at this distance. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1993) uses this 5,000 foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No Impact. The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Jan.1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and prov de§ coordination of emergency response at the local level in response ~ a Appendix G Project Title Page 7 hazardous materials incident. The proposed project could introduce substances typical of a mixed - use planned community. However, hazardous waste facilities guidelines have been adopted for Kern County to provide for adequate designation of hazardous waste disposal facilities to serve the residents and the industries of Kern County and its various incorporated cities thus, reducing the impacts to a less than significant level. No Impact. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area or it is within the area covered by the Hillside Development Ordinance (HD) which has standards required by the Kern County Fire Department which address the issue of wildland fires and urban development. No Impact. VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure that the quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be substantially affected. No Impact. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. No Impact. There are no streams or rivers on the project site, existing drainage patterns will not be altered to an significant degree. All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on and off site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. Within the segments of Brundage Lane and adjacent land located within the city, all development must comply with Item VIII a. through f. No Impact. d. See answer to VIII c. e. See answer to VIII c. f. See answer VIII a. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No Impact. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No Impact Appendix G Project Title Page 8 The proposed project is not within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area or the 100 year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (Safety Element). Or the project is within the inundation area but the chances of loss injury and/or death are so remote (worst case scenario, one event in more than 10,000 years, Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk involved is regarded as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). No Impact. The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is not located at the foot of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a mudflow. No Impact. IX LAND USE AND PLANNING Brundage Lane is an existing roadway approximately seven and three- fourths miles in length and two to four lanes wide. Considering that the two lane segments may someday be four lanes, it may be considered a continuation of the existing development. The project would not divide and existing community. No impact. The following is a general land use pattern of the north and south sides of segments of Brundage Lane. Brundage Lane has been divided into segments with each segment having a predominant land use along the nodh and south sides of the roadway. These segments are as follows: Oak StreetJWible Road to Chester Avenue (approximately one mile) - predominantly commercial with some offices and single- family residences; II. Chester Avenue to Union Avenue (approximately one mile) ~ Almost exclusively commercial with very few residences: III. Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road/Lakeview Avenue (one mile) - predominantly commercial with single-family dwellings, industrial, churches and undeveloped land; IV. Cottonwood Road/Lakeview Road to Oswell Street (two miles) - primarily industrial and undeveloped land with commercial, church and a post office; Oswell Street to Fairtax Road (one mile) - commercial, residential and churches; Appendix G Project Title Page 9 VI. VII. Fairfax Road to State Route-184 (one mile) - primarily industrial with commercial, residences, a church and undeveloped land; and State Route-184 to Edison Highway (approximately % mile) - primarily undeveloped land with commercial, a recreational vehicle park and a orange grove. X XI The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts with policies or ordinances which were established to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. No Impact. c. See answer to Va. MINERAL RESOURCES The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources, see figure V-3 Conservation Element, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. No Impact. b. See answer to X a. NOISE Brundage Lane is presently constructed to a four and two lane roadway. The Circulation Element amendment from arterial to collector will not be a noise generator. No Impact. b. See answer to XI a. c. See answer to XI a. See answer to Xl a. See answer to XI a. See answer to XI a. XII POPULATION AND HOUSING Brundage Lane is presently constructed to a four and two lane roadwa,y,,., and will not induce population growth in this area. No Impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 10 The project does not propose the displacement of any existing housing. No Impact. The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No Impact. Xlll PUBLIC SERVICES a. Fire Protection? Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. Brundage Lane is presently constructed to a four and two lane roadway. This project will not induce population growth nor add new buildings in this area. No Impact. Police Protection? Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Brundage Lane is presently constructed to a four and two lane roadway and will not induce population growth in this area requiring additional police services. No Impact. Schools? The project should not impact school facilities. No Impact. Parks? The project proposes no increase in population for the area and would not result in a impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or create a substantial need for new parks of recreational facilities. No Impact. Other Public Facilities? Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of this area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant. No Impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 11 XIV RECREATION a. See answer to "Parks". b. See answer to "Parks" XV TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Brundage Lane is presently constructed as a four and two lane roadway. Regardless of whether the roadway is designated an arterial or a collector, traffic may increase. A change in designation of an existing four and two lane roadway should not be the catalyst generating traffic. No Impact. The project must comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan which has a level of service standard C which is higher than the Congestion Management Plan level of service standard D. No Impact, The project does not propose air traffic or impact air traffic patterns. No Impact. Brundage Lane is presently constructed as a four and two lane roadway. No roadway improvements are proposed. No Impact. Brundage Lane is presently constructed as a four and two lane roadway. All projects are by ordinance subject to the access requirements of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department which includes an evaluation of adequate emergency access. No Impact. Brundage Lane is presently constructed as a four and two lane roadway. Where allowed, on street parking may be provided. No significant parking impacts specific to this project have been identified. No Impact. The project is not anticipated to be inconsistent in any way with policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. No Impact. XVl UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. This project will not impact sanitary sewer. No Impact. The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities. No Impact. Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water xi 'ri facilities, the construction of which is typically an extension of the e sti g Appendix G Project Title Page 12 system. Where new development occurs along either the north or south sides of Brundage Lane within the City of Bakersfield and storm water facilities are required, such facilities will be installed by the developer. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact. No Impact. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Where new development occurs along either the north or south sides of Brundage Lane within the City of Bakersfield and water utilities are required, such facilities will be installed by the developer. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact. No Impact. This project will not affect the waste water treatment provider. No Impact. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially, altered facilities to accommodate this project. No Impact. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. No Impact. XVll MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level which is less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h) of the CEQA Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted, is an enforceable standard that meets the definition of Section 15064(h)(3). Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. No Impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 13 As described in the responses above, the proposal has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited or cumulatively considerable. The project area is currently designated for urban type development. No Impact. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact. RED February 5, 2002 (10:48am) S:\Dole\P01-1025'Appendix G Response wpd J o~ Z Z-.t-