Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 4101ORDINANCE NO. Z[ 11_ 0 I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 101-13 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM A-20A (AGRICULTURE'20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING) ON 18.64 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALLEN ROAD AND REINA ROAD. (FILE # 02-0616) WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield generally located along the southeast corner of Allen Road and Reina Road; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.119-02 on September 19, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to approve R-2 zoning as delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 101-13 marked Exhibit "2", by this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make severa~ general and specific findings of fact which warranted a negative declaration of environmental impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from A-20A and the Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and correct; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations, as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, Planning Commission and this Council; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on August 12, 2002, in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows residential development and agricultural production; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: All required public notices have been given. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed. Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval shown on Exhibit Nos. "1" and "lA" are included in the project to ameliorate impacts. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices justify the amendment to Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code and Zoning Map No. 101-13. Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this project will result in impacts that fa~l 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. SECTION 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted. Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use zoning of that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property is shown on Zoning Map. No. 101-13 marked Exhibit "2" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are more specifically described in attached Exhibit "3". Such zone change is hereby made subject to the mitigation measures/conditions of approval listed in attached Exhibit Nos. "1" and "lA", subject to approval of GPA 02-0616. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ......... O00 ........ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on NOV 2 0 2002 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER ~ ~ COUNCILMEMBER /',.j.C¢~,.-~ ,, COUNCILMEMBER f%~.~ ,-.4p.. More signatures on next page 2 APPROVED NO4 ~ 0 200~ PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CM~// CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Cl~rk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield HARVEY ~. H~LL /~ Mayor of the City of Bakers~ld APPROVED as to form BART J. THILTGEN C ty Attorney,, ~ S:\Dole\02-0616\CC ZC Ord. DOC EXHIBIT 1 MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 02-0616 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. Comply with traffic study mitigation measures shown on Exhibit lA (Table 6). 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 ordinance requires all on site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements be built by each development. Comply with 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. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian. Total park acreage estimated for the proposed project is 1.2825 acres. In addition, for every residential unit constructed, a park development fee must be paid. (Note: Subject site is located within the jurisdiction of the North of the River Recreation and Park District). CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONS The minimum density of development will be 12 units per acre net. A masonry wall will be constructed along the east and south property lines. There will be an on-site active recreational amenity which shall be constructed with one of the first two phases of development. There will be at least one on-site manager at all times. A row of evergreen trees will be planted along the east and south boundary to serve as visual screening between the multifamily zone and single family zone. EXHIBIT lA Intersection Rcina Road Allen Road Reina Road Old Farm Road Reina Road Jewetta Avenue Noriega Road Alien Road Hageman Road Allen Road Table 6 Traffic Operations Mitigatinn Analysis Intersection Level of Service_ Total hnprovements Improvements not Required by 2020 * Install signal. NBL, SBL, WBL, EBL Install signal. NBL, SBL, WBL, EBL Install signal, SILL, SBT, WBL, EBL, EBI .... Install signal Install signal, SBR, SBL, WBR, WWI, covered by RTIF 2Local NBL, SBL, WBL. EBL Install signal, NBL, SBL, WBL, EBL WBL. EBL. EBR NB = Norih Bound SB = South Bound EBI,, EBT V,B: ',Vest Bound EB = East Bound Project % Share for Local M~ptio~n 4.10% 5.96% 2.10% 5,64% S[3R, SBI, T: I~nrough Lane City of Bakersfield GPA & Zone Change Reina Road & Allen Road gU, EZTGER.~ A-20A TO R-2 ZONE CHANGE 02-0616 EXHIBIT 2 ZONING MAP IO1-13, EXHIBIT 2 a CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS M-1 (Light Manufacturing) R-1 (One Family Dwelling- 6,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit) E (Estate - 10,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit) R-S (Residential Suburban - 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit) R-S-lA (Residential Suburban, one-acre minimum lot size) R-S-2.SA (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre minimum lot size) R-S-SA (Residential Suburban five-acre minimum lot size) R-S-10A (Residential Suburban ten-acre minimum lot size) R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/2,500 sq.ft./dwelling unit) R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling- 1/1,250 sq.ft./dwelling unit) R-4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/600 sq.ft./dwelling unit) R-H (Residential Holding) PUD (Planned Unit Development) C-O (Professional and Administration Office) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) C-2 (Regional Commercial) C-C (Commercial Center) PCD (Planned Commercial Development) M-2 (General Manufacturing) M-3 (Heavy Industrial) A (Agriculture) A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum) P (Automobile Parking) RE (Recreation) Ch (Church) OS (Open Space) HOSP. (Hospital) D (Architectural Design) (no longer in use) AD (Architectural Design) FP-P (Floodplain Primary) FP-S (Floodplain Secondary) AA (Airport Approach) TT (Travel Trailer Park) MH (Mobilehome) SC (Senior Citizen) flzone.1 EXHIBIT "3" Z C 02-0616 LEGAL ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 8 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, M.D.B.M., IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER "SALES MAP OF LANDS OF KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY", RECORDED NOVEMBER 24, 1891 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF KERN COUNTY. DAV1S-EXH EXHIBIT "C' APPEALS OCT O? 2002 14:37 CI FY OF BRKERSFIELD Memo CLERK dS1 323 3780 p. 1 4500 California Ave., Suite #20z Bakersfield, CA 93309 (661) 859-2300 Fax (661)659-2305 02 S~P 30 A;q I1: t& ~r, 14ERSFiEL ] C TY CLERK To: From: Subject: Date: City Clerk, City of Bakersfield James T Murphy Appeal oflIems 7.4A& 7.4B, Platming Commission(A.P.N. 462-032-02, aka SEC of Allen and Reina Roads) September 27, 2002 I am the Managing Member of Bakersfield Land Development LLC, and own the 40 acre parcel on the NEC of Allen and Reina Roads, in the City of Bakers~eld. This is a formal request for an appeal to the City Counsel of Bakersfield of the approval ,given by the Planning Commission on September 19~', 2002, of a General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration covering the SEC of Alien and Reina Roads (APN 462-032-02) The agenda items that are the subject of this appeal are ~s follows: Item 7.4A: Approval o£the General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration Item 7.4B: Approval of the Negative Declaration. COrd[any ~hy, Managing'=-'--'"*-~-'-'~b~,~er, Bakersfield Land Development Group LLC OCT O? 2002 14:37 CIFY OF BRKERSFIELD CLERK 661 323 3?80 FlOYd Hlnesley '~900 California Avenue, Suite '130 ~ Bakersfield, California 93309 Phone 661-323-9983 ~ Fax 661-323-9982 ~ Email Ihine$1ey~earl~link,net September 25, 2002 City Council City of Bakersfield C/O Office of Ci~ Clerk 1501 Traxtun Avenue Bakersfield, Califomia 93301 Dear City Clerk, I would formally like to file an appeal in regards to General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration approved by the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission when they met on September 19, 2002. It is my tmderstanding as a landowmer within 300 feet of this parcel; it is my right to appeal without charge. ]-he items subject to my appea! as referenced in the agenda - Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield dated September 19, 2002 are as follows: 7.4A Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration 7.4B Approval of the Negative Declaration EXHIBIT "D' CORRESPONDENCE GAS~ & GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES DEt ARTMENT OF COF.$ERVATION STATE O F C A L [ F O R N ] A August 14, 2002 Mr. Richard Dole Bakersfield City Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Dole: Subject: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0616 Podion of Sec. 13-T29S/R26E MDBM The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) has reviewed the above referenced project. The Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells in California. The Division offers the following comments for your consideration. The proposed project is located beyond the administrative boundaries of any oilfield. There are no oil, gas, or injection wells of record within the project boundaries. Regardless, if any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. This office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please call Joseph A. Austin at the Bakersfield district office: 4800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 417, Bakersfield, CA 93309; phone (661) 322-4031. Sincerely, David Mitchell Senior Oil and Gas Engineer KE~OUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS August 20, 2002 Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Our File No.: CI02-0078 Re: General Plan Amendment / Zone Change P02-0616 (Southeast corner of Allen Road and Reina Road) Dear Mr. Ortiz: This office represents the Rosedale Union and Kern High School Districts. The districts have been advised that Government Code Sections 65995, 65996, and 65997 (as amended with an operative date of November 4, 1998) now prohibit the City of Bakersfield from denying or refusing to approve a project such as this on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. For this reason, neither district expects the City to impose any condition related to the financing of public school facilities at this time. Mitigation of this project's impacts on public school facilities will be limited to the collection of statutory fees authorized under Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Sections 65995 et seq. (all as amended with an operative date of November 4, 1998) at the time that building permits are issued. Currently these fees are set at $2.14 per square foot, an amount subject to COLA adjustment every two years. However, the Rosedale Union School District has adopted the alternative fees authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5 and/or 65995.7. The current fee of $1.94 per square foot will be levied on all new residential building permits. (This alternative fee under Government Code Section 65995.5 is nominally 50 percent of construction cost, while that under Government Code Section 659957--which can be levied when the State's school facilities program runs out of money--is nominally 100 percent of construction cost.) Therefore, residential permits issued within this district are subject to this alternative fee of $1.94, plus the Kern High School District's share of statutory fees of $2.14 ($0.75), for a total of $2.69 per square foot. Thank you for this oppodunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me, or Christopher Burger, at 636-4599, or through e-mail at mabaker@kern.org. Sincerely, MLW cc: Districts G IDIVADM~NISDFStCORR~SIO2.C~IylCIO2-OO78 RoseOale wpd Larry E. Reider County Superintendent of Schools Mary L. BakedJFacility Specialist II School District Facility Services · . . advocates for children 1300 1 /Ua Street - CI 1Y CENrRE, [~akersfleld, CA 93301 4533 (661/ 636-4000 · FAX (661) 636-4130 · TDD 1661) 636 4800 · httB://c,',~,~-~'v~kern.org Partner - Kern County Netv~,~rk for Children Au~ust 15, 2002 Mr. Ri~ hard l)c>le, Associate plalmer Bakersfield Development Servic ('s Department I715 Chester Avenue Bakerstield, Califotnia Dear Mr. Dole: -, ,renced >ro ~osed 3rt jett located alon?, thc s(~utheast corner (>t Allen Road and Reina Ro~d will impart Nortln Bakersfield [~t,creatioI~ and I>ark District's servtces and tacilities. Park in lieu amd development lees will assist miti~vdion of the impatt to the District. Sirtcerely, Colon G. Bywater Planning and Construction Director C'Gg:b~ EXHIBIT "E" GPA/ZC 02-0616 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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, SEPTEMBER 16, 2002, in the Council Chambers, City Hall. The Monday podion 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, SEPTEMBER 19, 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/Zone Change 02-0616. Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan changing the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the zoning from A~20-A (Agricultural-20 Acre Minimum) to R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) or more restrictive zoning on 18.64 acres. 2. Project location: Subject site is located along the southeast corner of Allen Road and Reina Road. 3. The name and address of the project applicant: Gregory W. Davis P.O. Box 10808 Bakersfield, CA 93389 NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at the same time and place by the Planning Commission to receive input from the public on the potential effect of this project on the environment. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impact of the proposed project. This study has shown that the proposal (as mitigated) will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration is proposed. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public through the Planning Department (contact Richard Dole) in the Development Services building at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (661) 326-3733, or by e-mailing the department at Planninq@ci.bakersfield.ca.us. Our website address is cl.bakersfield.ca.us. if your property is rented or leased, we request that you provide your tenant(s) notice of this public hearing. 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. 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: August 12, 2002 POSTED: August 12, 2002 RED August 6, 2002 S:'~)o[e',02~)616~nph.doc Dennis C. Fidler Building Direclor (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 B A K E R S F I E L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Augmst 12, 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 informing you of your opportunity to conzment either in favor or against the proposed project. You should express your comments at the public hearing indicated on the attached nolice. 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 cmmnents can be considered by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Richard Dole Associate Planner City of Bakersfield ° 1715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California ° 93301 ALLEN ROAD j EWE'TTA AVENU~ N Dennis C. Fidler Building Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 B A K E R $ F I E L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director August 12, 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 gwen 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, September 16, 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, September 19, 2002, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301. For more information, please call the department at (661) 326-3733. Sincerely, Richard Dole Associate Planner S:~Dole\062-0616\RA doc City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301 ALLEI ROAD JEWEl-fA AVENU~ APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form Project Title: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0616 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Bakersfield 17t5 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Contact Person and Phone Number: Richard Dole, Associate Planner (661) 326~3041 Project Location: A portion of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 13, T 29 S, R 26 E, MDB&M, generally located along the southeast corner of the intersection of Allen Road and Reina Road. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Gregory W. Davis P. O. Box 10808 Bakersfield, CA 93389 General Plan Designation: R-IA (Resource-intensive Agriculture)* Existing Zoning: A-20A (Agricultrue-20 Acre Minimum)* Description of Project: Applicant is requesting a general plan amendment from R-IA (Resource-Intensive agriculture) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) and a zone change on from A-20A to R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) on 18.64 acres. Applicant proposes 225 multiple- family dwelling units.* 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: LOCATION LAND USE North Reina Road, Undeveloped Land, Single-Family Dwellings (approximately 1/8 mile north of Reina Road) South Agricultural Land, Noriega Road, Single-Family Dwellings (approximately lA mile south of subject site) East Agricultural Land West Allen Road, Agricultural Land, Tree Crops (Northwest) * General plan land use designations and zoning district designations are shown on Exhibit 3. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is Required: N/A Appendix G Project Title GPA,'ZG 02 0616 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact tI~at is a "Potentially Significant Irnpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agricultural Resources · Biological Resources · Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous M~doriais Hydrology / Water Quality Public Services Recreation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance · 1 ranspodation / Traffic · Air Quality · Geology / Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing 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. t~"~l find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be 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 ENVIRONMENTA 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 docum( 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 analy: only tho effects that remain to be addressed [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIV DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature ,:/ Printed name For Appendix G Project Title G PA/ZC 02-0616 Page 3 Potentially Significant Impact 1.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? 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 Impodance (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 (;IUALITY: -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than No Significant Impac! Incorporation Impact Appendix G Project Title GPA/ZC 02-0616 Page 4 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) Intedere 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? 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: a Cause a substantial adverse change in the [] significance of a historical resource as defined in 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact [] [] · [] [] · [] · 4 Appendix G Project Title G PA/ZC 02-0616 Page 5 Potentially Significant Impact 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- [] 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 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. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [] environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] No impact 5 Appendix G Project Title GPA/ZC 02-0616 Page 6 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 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 intedere 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? Potentially Significant Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [] requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [] substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the [] site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed [] the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [] g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as [] mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures [] which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] Less Than Significant Impact [] [] [] No tmpact Appendix G Project Title GPA/ZC 02-0616 Page 7 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? 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 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 Iocally-impodant [] 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 airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 Appendix G Project Title GPA/ZC 02-0616 Page 8 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING: -~ Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, [] either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, [] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating [] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No impact 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 pedormance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [] [] · [] Police protection? [] [] · [] Schools? [] [] · [] Parks? [] · [] [] 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? 8 Appendix G Project Title GPA/ZC 02 O616 Page 9 Potentially Significant Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in [] relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of [] service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including [] either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [] (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [] supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [] applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm [] water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the [] project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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 Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [] [] [] No Impact 9 Appendix G Project Title GPA/ZC 02-0616 Page 10 disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [] No Impact S:\Dole\02-0616\ND APPENDIX G.doc 10 II NEGATIVE DECLARATION INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX G Environmental Checklist Form Response Sheet GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 02-0616 AESTHETICS The project site is located within an area having natural slopes from 0-5%. The area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan as visually important or "scenic". There is no scenic vista that would be impacted by the construction of this project. No 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 visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. No Impact. This project involves incremental growth of urban development typical of the area. Light from this development 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. This impact is not regarded as significant. No Impact. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The project does not convert 100 acres or more of any of the farmlands designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Department of Conservation Kern County Interim - Farmland 1996, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. There are currently more than 1.6 million acres under Williamson Act Contract in Kern County (1999), the loss of less than 100 acres is clearly not a significant change to this resource (.00625 % of the total amount of prime farmland under contract in Kern County). State CEQA guidelines section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or area wide significance. No significant impacts are noted. No impact. Appendix G Project Title Page 2 b. The 18.64 acre subject site is zoned A-20A and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Property north of the subject site, along the north side of Reina Road is under Kern County jurisdiction and is zoned "E" (Estate ~A acre minimum) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) See Table I. Property west of the subject site, along the west side of Allen Road and immediately south of the subject site are zoned "A" and also under County jurisdiction. East of the subject site the property is zoned R-1 and under City of Bakersfield jurisdiction. Properties zoned for residential development have special setback requirements between residential structures and agricultural uses or zoning (see Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.150). This special setback is 50 feet between residences and agricultural zoning. Approval of the HMR/R-2 request would activate the special setback. Due to the road right-of-way widths of Allen Road and Noriega Road being greater than 50 feet, the special setback would not apply to the north and west sides of the project site. If lots are developed adjacent to the "A" zone adjacent to the south side of the subject site, the special setback would be applicable. Less than significant impact. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. New single-family residential developments are under construction approximately ~A mile north and south of the subject site. The impact is not regarded as potentially significant. No Impact. 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. 2 Appendix Project Title Page g This project is subject to the full range of local ordinances which ensure compliance with these air quality strategies. 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. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorportation. 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 "severely" congested. There are no adjacent intersections which are at a Level of Service (LOS) "F" and, therefore, by definition no significant pollutant "hot spot" impacts are identified for this project. For the year 2020 without the project, the traffic study shows the intersection of Reina Road and Jewetta Avenue having a"F" LOS. However for the year 2020, this intersection with the project and with mitigation improves to a "C" LOS. Less Than Significant With Mitigation I ncorportation. Appendix G Project Title Page 4 The land use Proposed/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). Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorportation. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area but does fall within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Wildlife Service mandates certain requirements that by ordinance all development projects must comply. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level. The project crosses no stream, either perennial or intermittent based on the United States Geological Survey topographic sheet for the area. In addition, there are no typical flora or fauna associated with wetlands on the site. There are no "Federally Protected Wetlands" identified in the project area. No Impact. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or along a canal which has been identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Services as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. 4 Appendix G Project Title Page 5 There is no evidence in the record that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No impact. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and therefore will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. No Impact. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources, see answer to IV e. above. V CULTURAL RESOURCES a. There are no structures on the site. No Impact. The California Archaeological Inventory at California State University Bakersfield has reviewed the existing literature for archaeological resources for this project and did not indicate an adverse change in the significance of any on site archaeological resource. The impact is not regarded as significant. 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. There is no evidence that the project is located within an area likely to produce human remains in the opinion of the California State Inventory at California State University Bakersfield. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. (NOTE: See Exhibit "4"). Appendix G Project Title Page 6 VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Bakersfield, located in the'San Joaquin Valley, has been a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these fault systems are the San Andreas, the Breckenridge-Kern County, the Garlock, the Pond Poso and the White Wolf. There are numerous additional faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and earthquake induced landslides. Future structures proposed on the project site will be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and will adhere to all modern earthquake standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In addition, because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorportation. a.ii. See answer to Vl.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 Vl.a i.. Also, subject site is not located within an area subject to landslides. The soil types prevalent on the proposed sites are listed in the Kern County California Soil Survey for the Northwestern region. Based on the soil survey, the project site includes Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 - 2 percent slopes and Wasco sandy loam soil types. Characteristics of Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 - 2 percent slopes include: prime farmland if water for irrigation is available, deep well drained soil on alluvial fans, moderate permeability, available water capacity is high, runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. 6 Appendix G Project Title Page 7 Characteristics of Wasco sandy loam include: prime farmland if water for irrigation is available, deep well drained soil on recent alluvial fans and flood plains, permeability is moderately rapid, available water capacity is moderate, runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils, exhibit expansion problems or limit the use of septic systems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. No Impact. See answers to VI a. i. and VI a. ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard. No Impact. 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. Appendix G Project Title Page 8 This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions within the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of Kern County. No Impact. The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip and it is therefore presumed not to have any land use impacts at this distance. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1993) uses this 5,000 foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. The subject site is located approximately 2,000 northeast of the Kern Mosquito Abatement District airport. Landings and takeoffs are to the northwest and southeast and should not impact any residential development on the subject site. This airport is a public sector airport for the private use of mosquito abatement aircraft. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Jan.1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. The proposed project could introduce substances typical of 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. Less Than Significant Impact. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it 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 wild land fires and urban development. No significant impacts are anticipated. 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 Appendix G Project Title Page 9 IX LAND a. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All water utility companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide some water system improvements to service the site but this impact is not regarded as significant. No Impact. There are no streams or rivers on the project site, existing drainage patterns will not be altered to a significant degree. All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on and off site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. The impact is not significant. No Impact. See answer to VIII c. See answer to VIII c. See answer VIII a. The project does not propose housing within a lO0-year flood plain as identified by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No Impact. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No Impact. The proposed project is not within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area or the 100 year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (Safety Element). 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. USE AND PLANNING The project is the continuation of the existing development pattern or an infill development which does not physically divide any existing community. No Impact. See Table I. 9 Appendix G Project Title Page 1 0 TABLE I Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties LAND USE ZONING EXISTING LOCATION DESIGNATION* DISTRICT LAND USE NORTH SR, LR E, R-1 (County Reina Road, Undeveloped Jurisdiction)" Land SOUTH LR R-l(City Jurisdiction)" Agricultural Land EAST LR R-1 (City Jurisdiction)* Agricultural Land WEST R-IA A (County Jurisdiction)" Allen Road, Agricultural Land *General plan land use designations and zoning district designations are shown on Exhibit 3. "County zoning districts: "R-1 "- Low Density Residential, maximum density 10 dwelling units per net acre; "E" - Estate ~ acre minimum; and "A" - Exclusive Agriculture. 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 V a. XI X 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 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. Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground bourne vibration or noise. No Impact. 10 Appendix G Project Title Page 11 XII Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the project site. Building Code requirements required for energy conservation result in a 20 d.b.a, reduction in noise for interior space, in addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will prevent substantial increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining area, will not expose people to severe noise levels and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact. Noise associated with the construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise levels has not been found to be significant. No Impact. This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of Kern County. Less Than Significant Impact. This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip and, therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant noise impacts (Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). Less Than Significant Impact. (NOTE: for items XI e. and f. above see VII e. and f. ). POPULATION AND HOUSING 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. No Impact. See Table II. TABLE II Population Projections PROPOSED DWELLING PERSON PER POPULATION LAND USE UNITS HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE Multi-Family Residential 225 2.77 623 11 Appendix Prqjcct l'itlc Page 1 2 The project does not propose the displacement of any existing housing. No Impact. c. The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No Impact. XIII PUBLIC SERVICES a. Fire Protection? Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. Projected increase of 623 new residents and 225 new structures into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service. Less Than Significant Impact. Police Protection? Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.32 officers for each 1,000 people in the city. Projected increase of 623 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of less than one new law enforcement officer to maintain current levels of service. Less Than Significant Impact. Schools? The proposed development of residential land uses could produce 225 housing units and could generate approximately 120 school age children as indicated in Table "111". This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. Existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant. TABLE III SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION TYPE AND ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL PUPILS NUMBER OF K-8 9- 12 UNITS 225 Duplex Units 225 x 0.39=88 225 x 0.14=32 120 Source: 1990 Federal Census 12 Appendix G Projecl Title Page 1 3 Parks? The project proposes an increase in population of 623 within the area and would result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and create a need for a new parks or recreational facilities. As indicated in Table "IV", the parkland requirements for the proposed project is calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance Park Standards of 2.5 acres per 1,000 populations. Total park acres estimated for the project is 1.2825 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. 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. TABLE IV Park Need - Proposed Project TYPE OF DWELLING PARK PARK ACREAGE DWELLING UNITS FACTOR NEEDED UNIT (acres/du) Multi-Family 225 .0057 1.2825 (3 + units) XIV RECREATION a. See answer to "Parks". b. See answer to "Parks ". 13 Appendix G Project Title Page 14 XV TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The proposed project will generate additional vehicular traffic movement as shown in Table "V". The project may potentially cause an increase in traffic which may be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may substantially impact existing transportation systems. The project may also alter the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. A traffic analysis has been required for this proposal. However, the impacts of the proposal shall be reduced to a less than significant level through the City ordinance requirement that all on-site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this development be mitigated. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, local ordinance requires all on site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements be built by each development. Traffic study mitigation measures are listed in Exhibit "1 ", "Recommended Mitigation Measures". Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. TABLE V Proposed Proiect Traffic Generation PROPOSED UNITS AVERAGE TOTAL TRIP LAND USE/ VEHICLE ENDS ZONING TRIP ENDS HMR 225 6.50/unit 1,463 b. 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. For the year 2020 without the project, the traffic study shows the intersection of Reina Road and Jewetta Avenue having a "F" LOS. However for the year 2020, this intersection with the project and with mitigation improves to a "C" LOS. Less Than Significant With Mitigation I ncorportation. The project does not propose air traffic or impact air traffic patterns. No Impact. 14 Appendix G Project Title Page 1 5 All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are no incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No Impact. All projects are by ordinance subject to the access requirements of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department which includes an evaluation of adequate emergency access. No Impact. The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use be provided. No 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 and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impacts fees which in part is used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No Impact. XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, no potentially significant impacts have been identified. No Impact. The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities. Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. Utility companies will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service. Less Than Significant Impact. Almost all new development requires 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. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. The utility company will be contacted and the one which provides for this area, Vaughn Water Company, has submitted a will serve letter for this project. No Impact. 15 Appendix G Project Title Page 1 6 XVII The City of Bakersfield is the waste water treatment provider and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project. No Impact. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially, altered facilities to accommodate this project. No Impact. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. No Impact. 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. As described in the responses above, the proposal has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Subject site is presently designated by the Land Use Element as R-IA and zoned A-20A (i.e. allocated for agricultural production). Land located directly north, south and east of the site is designated for urban development. New residential development is occurring approximately ~,4 mile north and south of the site with existing residences approximately lA mile south and 3~ mile east of the site. The subject site may be viewed as an enclave of misplaced designated land intruding into the urbanized area. No Impact. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact. 16 Appendix G Project Title Page 17 Reference List The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG), and the Golden empire Transit District (GET), March 1999. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), The Planning Center, July 1989. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Repot (FEIR), State clearinghouse (SCH) # 8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, Kern COG, GET, September 1989. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a) (1) (b) and 2081 permits, 1994. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code. Southern San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts. S:\Dole\02-0616\ND APPENDIX G RESPONSE doc 17 EXHIBIT 1 MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 02-0616 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. Comply with traffic study mitigation measures shown on Exhibit lA (Table 6). 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 ordinance requires all on site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements be built by each development. Comply with 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. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian. Total park acreage estimated for the proposed project is 1.2825 acres. In addition, for every residential unit constructed, a park development fee must be paid. (Note: Subject site is located within the jurisdiction of the North of the River Recreation and Park District). S:\Dole\02-0616\Mitigation,doc [ntcrscction Reina Road Old Farm P, oad Reina Road Jewetla Avenue Noriega Road Allen Road Hageman Road ALlen Road ;Sec tabl~ for resulting SB = South Bound [LB = Ea-st Bound Table 6 Traffic ()peratim~s Mitigation Anal, sis Intersection l,evel of ,;ervice Total hnprovemcnts h'nprovcments not Required hy 2020 * covered hy I~T1F (_Local Mitigation) Install :;ignal, NBI., SIll., WBL, EBI. NF, I., SBI., Will., EBI. Install signal, Nl/I., SBI., WBI., EBL Install signal SBI., SBT, WBL, EBL, EBL , Install signal Install signal, NBR, SI/l., \VBR, WBI, SI3R, SBI. ] 1BI,, FBI I Vhrough I.anc City of Bakersfield GPA & Zone Change Reina Road & Allen Road 14 Proje¢! % Share for Local Mit~ation 4.10% Install signal, NBL, SBL, 5.96% WBL, EBL WBL, EBL, EBR 2.10% 5.64% 316% ~UETTGE~P~, ALLEN~ ROAD JEWE'F[A AVEN~U~ ITl ALLEt ROAD ITl Z ITl EXHIBIT ~3" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RR (Rural Residential - 2.5 gross acres/dwelling LI (Light Industrial) unit) SI (Service Industrial) ER (Estate Residential - 1 dwelling unit/net acre) HI (Heavy Industrial) SR (Suburban Residential - less than or equal to 4 dwelling units/net acre) - - - LR (Low Density Residential - less than or equal to P (Public Facilities) 7.26 dwelling units/net acre) PS (Public/Private School) LMR (Low Medium Density Residential - greater than 4 and less than or equal to 10 dwelling units/net PT (Public Transportation) acre) P.SW (Solid Waste Facilities) HMR (High Medium Density Residential - greater than 7.26 and less than 17.42 dwelling units/net acre) OS (Open Space) HR (High Density Residential - greater than 17.42 OS-P (Parks) and less than or equal to 72.6 dwelling units/net acre) OS-S (Slopes) .... R-IA (Resource Intensive Agriculture, 20 acres minimum) HC (Highway Commercial) R-EA (Resource-Extensive Agriculture, GC (General Commercial) 20 acres minimum) MC (Major Commercial) R-MP (Resource-Mineral Petroleum, 5 acres minimum) dC (Office Commercial) MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) General Plan Street Classification Arterials are used primarily by through traffic, with a minimal function to provide access to Freeways provide service to through traffic exclusively abutting property. with no access to abutting property and no at-grade intersections. Collectors function to connect local streets with arterials and to provide access to abutting Expressways are arterial highways with at least partial property. control of access which may or may not be divided or have grade separations at intersections and may be an Locals are exclusively for property access and interim facility for an ultimate freeway, through traffic is discouraged. EXHIBIT "3" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS R-1 (One Family Dwelling ~ 6,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit) E (Estate - 10,000 sq,ft./dwelling unit) R-S (Residential Suburban - 24,000 sq.ft./dwellin9 unit) R-S-lA (Residential Suburban, one-acre minimum lot size) R-S-2.5A (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre minimum lot size) R-S-SA (Residential Suburban five-acre minimum lot size) R-S-10A (Residential Suburban ten-acre minimum lot size) R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/2,500 sq,ft./dwelling unit) R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/1,250 sq.ft./dwelling unit) R--4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/600 sq.fl./dwelling unit) R-H (Residential Holding) PUD (Planned Unit Development) C-O (Professional and Administration Office) C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) C-2 (Regional Commercial) C-C (Commercial Center) PCD (Planned Commercial Development) M-1 (Light Manufacturing) M-2 (General Manufacturing) M-3 (Heavy Industrial) A (Agriculture) A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum) P (Automobile Parking) RE (Recreation) Ch (Church) OS (Open Space) HOSP. (Hospital) D (Architectural Design) (no longer in use) AD (Architectural Design) FP-P (Floodplain Primary) FP-S (Floodplain Secondary) AA (Airport Approach) TI' (Travel Trailer Park) (Mobilehome) SC (Senior Citizen) ~ EXHIBIT "4" ~ALIFORNIA ~ ..... FRESNO HISTORICAL ~ KERN RESOURCES ~.~.,~ KINGS INFORMATION ~::.~,h~ MADERA ~YSTEM ~ TULARE ~uthern San Joaquin Valley Information Center California State University, Bakersfield 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, California 93311-1099 6611664-2289 FAX 661/664-2415 E-mall: abaldwin@csubak, edu TO: Mr. Gregory W. bavis (RS~ 02-138) 1807 Mystic Meadows Bakersfield, CA 93312 bATE: RE: April 26.2002 GPA & Zone Change for Property at SE Corner of Reina Way and Allen Road, Bakersfield, CA County: Kern Map(s): Rosedale 7.5' The Archaeological Information Center is under contract to the State Office of Historic Preservation and is responsible for the local management of the California Historical Resources Inventories. The Center is funded by research fees and o grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation. The Information Center does not conduct fieldwork and is not affiliated with any archaeological consultants who conduct fieldwork. A referral list of individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards for their profession is available upon request. CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH The following ore the results of a search of the cultural resources files at the Southern San ,Toaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center. These files include known and recorded archaeological and historic sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (2/02), the California Historical Landmarks, the California ]]nventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historical Interest. PR[OR CULTURAL RE,SOURCE T. NVENTORT. E$ WTTH'rN THE PRO,,TECT AREA AND WZ'T'HZN A ~ NL[LE RADIUS The entire project area was surveyed for cultural resources in 1991 by archaeologist Robert Yohe, I¢ report KE-1819. There has been one survey conducted within o ½ mile radius, KE-1399. (RS ~ 02-138) KNOWN AND/OR RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES ON THE 5UB,TECT PROPERTY AND WI'THTN A { NLTLE RAbTUS No cultural resources were discovered during the above referenced survey. There ore no known cultural resources within the project area that are listed in National Register of Historic Places, California Inventory of Historic t~esources, California Points of Historic Interest or the California State Historic Landmarks. RECOMMENDATIONS No cultural resource investigation is recommended at this time. If cultural resources are unearthed during ground disturbance activities on the parcel, all work should halt in the area of the find. A qualified professional archaeologist should be coiled in to evaluate the findings and make the appropriate mitigation recommendations. If you hove any questions, comments, or need any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me at (661l) 664-2289. Adele Baldwin Assistant Coordinator Date: April 26, 2002 F¢¢; $120.O0/hr. Invoice # A1808 EXHIBIT "F" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Minutes~ PC~ September 19~ 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Gay moved to approve the ~ the calming devices to accommodate the neighbors on Appaloosa and give them the !: ~ey require, but will also allow for flexibilit~ for the neighbors to work with Councilman Couch and scheduled meeting on the 24" and get a calming device, or no calming device ~s acceptable to those residents on Appaloosa. Commissioner Gay made a motion, making findings approving the Negative Declaration and Amendment to amend the land use element des[ nation approving the circulation element circulation map as delineated in Exhibit 2 of the draft resolution and with the u calming traffic indicated in the September 16, 2002 submitted GPAJ zone change to the City that the memo can I if[ed and that additional calming of the City prior to the of the GPA zone change to the Cit by the following seconded b~ loner Tkac, to adopt the resolution the requested General Plan ER to SR on 20 acres, and Road as a collector segment g that the additional mo from Ms. Shaw will be with the understanding be added upon approval ~uncil. Motion carried AYE: Blockley, Ell[son, Gay, McGinnis fish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay made a by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Declaration approving the requested zone change to change the zoning district from A to reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as Exhibit 2 with the understanding that the no dated September 16, 2002 from Ms. Shaw can be modified to incorporate additional calming devices prior to submission of the GPA,/ zone change to the City Council. Motion carried ~e following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners BIockley, Ellis Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.4a&b) GPA/ZC No. P02-0616 (Gregory W. Davis) (Ward 4) Commissioner Tragish stated that he has a conflict and recused himself. Staff report given recommending approval. The following spoke against staff' recommendation: Floyd Hinsley stated that he owns the 40 acre parcel immediately south and contiguous to this parcel. He stated that he was only notified on Tuesday as he onty acquired title to that property a few weeks ago. He has requested from the applicant that they sit down and discuss input they might want to have about the applicant's project. The lots being constructed are predominately 10,000 square feet, and the housing is going to be upper-moderate in nature, probably in the $200,000 range and he hopes that the apartments that would be constructed there would be something that would be compatible with the homes they propose to build. He requested that prior to approval that some approved declared amenities be in place such as through a PUD. He Minutes~ PC~ September 19~ 2002 Page 10 stated that he would like to know if there will be landscape buffers, single stories buffering the residential R-1 units, and proper traffic flows that do not encroach on the R-1 properties. He suggested a continuance to allow tor him to sit down with the applicant and have some input in this project. Fred Poder, from Poder-Robedson Engineering, stated that he is Mr. Hinsley's engineer on his property. He explained that the property to the north is a 40 acre parcel that Mr. Murphy is a partner in, and he submitted a letter to staff opposing this project. This parcel has been annexed to the City a few weeks ago. Mr. Porter stated that as a condition of the properly that he has purchased, and the property that he has option on he controls 140 acres of the 160 acre property bounded by Allen Road, Old Farm Road to the east, Reina on the north and Noriega on the south. As a condition of the approval for the zone change and general plan amendment he was required to do a sewer study. This study has been done, and there is a restriction in the sewer line south of the project. The entitlements that Mr. Hinsley currently has on the 140 acres of property limits him to 520 homes based on traffic. The sewer study shows that his property can be served, plus an additional 111 units above and beyond that. Mr. Porter indicated that the proposed 225 units would exceed the sewer capacity. Mr. Porter stated that there could be a buffer for the single family, and there could be a buffer of the proposed R-2, and a PCD or PUD would protect the developers' interests and still accomplish what the applicant wants to accomplish. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Grog Davis, owner of the subject property, stated that he is a farmer, stated that he has owned this property for a number of years. He explained that after research with the City as to what he should do with this property, he was advised that R~2 zoning would be appropriate given the surrounding area of the property. He stated that he does see the need for higher densiby dwelrings g~ven the current rapid population growth, which is encroaching on prime agricultural land. Michelle Lamoine with Mclntosh and Associates on behalf of Greg Davis stated that Mr. Davis has provided a well planned, well thought ought progressive project that is going to be in an area that is going to provide housing to the residents of the northwest portion of Bakersflerd, and also to the new Target and the ITTC development that is going to employ a huge amount of people. She indicated that the staff report does not indicate any environmental impacts associated with this project that the proposed mitigations would not adequately lesson any impacts to the environment from the project. She stated that the request for a possible PUD is not something that they would prefer to see because the product that the applicant is proposing is going to be approved through site plan review process, and in that process there are certain guidelines and policies that must be met with respect to landscaping and setback for both single and two-story units. Further, there was a traffic study prepared that has been reviewed by Public Works that addresses the applicant's pro-rata share for the TIF program. She believes the project itseff can be supported well through site plan review without a PUD. She further commented that while the sewer study has been submitted, it has not been reviewed and approved as of yet. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks this proiect is needed in this area, and it will be put forth before a site plan review, which will be open to the public for review and comment. He states that the sewer issues will be worked out. He further stated that he is in favor of Staff's recommendation and approving the General Plan Amendment and the zone change as proposed. Commissioner Gay stated that he is in favor of the project as it stands, although a PUD might be a good idea. Minutes~ PC~ September 19~ 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Sprague stated that he does not believe a PUD overlay is needed in this situation. Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the negative declaration approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-1 A to HMR on 18.64 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and make the recommendation to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Biockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A-20A to R-2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners BIockley, EIlison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 7.5) Text Amendment to RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan No. P02-0620 (RiverLakes (Ward 4) Staff report given. Memoranda, aerial that they received a fax this date from recommendation, and agreeing with the does not believe that access to ores and traffic information provided. Staff indicated Bill Williams recommending the approval of staff's ; to Coffee Road from his Northshore project, and Jld be closed off to them. Public hearing opened. The following spoke f Johnson, Cheryl Santos, Mike Callagy, Mike Rosenlieb, Mary Powelson, Ken Swift, Start Ryan, Martin Marks, Harold Sudgen and and against the project: Estey Songer, Rosetta /cods, John Hedgepetch, Jeff Williams, Jay Hank LeMay, Deborah Howard, Rosemary Traffic was the major issue for those in e e project. They feel that there will be more cars coming onto Coffee with the apartments going which will make Coffee Road a raceway. Cars that will try to make a U-turn Olive is a disaster when all of the traffic is coming off of Peanut onto Coffee Road. it is backed up a block and-a-half waiting to get onto Coffee Road. Some concern was expressed about parking. Residents feel that the tenants will be parking on the street and usin¢ ~e~r garages for storage. Current residents also wanted the Commission to apartments. They feel this will bring more traffic c also expressed as a concem. to Northshore Drive from the Drive. Excess foot traffic was The public podion of the hearing is closed. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Kern ) PAMELA A. McCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield; and that on the 21st day of November , 2002 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 4101 , passed by the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 20th day of November 2002 and entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 101-13 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROMA- 20A (AGRICULTURE-20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ON 18.64 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALLEN ROAD AND REINA ROAD. /s/PAMELA A. McCARTHY City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield DEPUTY ~it y~;~r k