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