HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 54-99RESOLUTION NO. 5 4 - 9 91
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN
(LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CASE NO. P98-
0749)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a
public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 15 and THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999 on a
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, notice of the time
and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20) calendar days before said
hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, such proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office has applied
to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from Light Manufacturing to
Mixed Use Commercial on 15+/- acres, on property bounded
by 21 st Street and 24th Street and "R" Street and the Kern
Island Canal; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, an Initial Study was
conducted, and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a
significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration with mitigations was
prepared; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and
adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA
Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 45-99 on March 18, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of this General Plan Amendment
subject to mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "A" and this Council has fully considered
the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public
hearing on WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999, on the above described proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10)
calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEI~,EAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. All required notices have been given.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have been followed.
environment.
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
4. Mitigation measures as shown on Exhibit "A" are included in the
project to ameliorate impacts.
5. The proposed Mixed Use- Commercial land use designation is
supportive of the intensive development characteristic for the downtown Bakersfield
area as foreseen by the Land Use Element policies of the 201 0 General Plan.
6. The proposed designation will provide for the integration of
medium or higher density residential uses in conjunction with appropriate commercial
activities and institutional uses consistent with the attainment of a vital downtown
business core for the City and metropolitan area.
7. Future site plan review of specific uses within the project will insure
compatibility with surrounding land uses and among the variety of uses to be included
within the project boundaries.
8. The proposed land use is designation is consistent with the level of
circulation access and public services presently in place or expected to be available in
the area.
9. Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by
Section 21082.2 of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the
purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that
this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard
to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in
accordance with Section 711 of the State of California Fish and Game Code.
Additionally. the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the above-referenced
absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a
Negative Declaration for this project.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are true and
correct.
2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports
and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission
to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan
Amendment Case No. P98-0749, a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the
map marked Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for
property generally located between 21 st Street and 24th Street between "R" Street and
the Kern Island Canal, subject to mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A".
5. That P98o0749, approved herein, be combined with other approved
segments described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land Use Element
Amendment as the First Quarter cycle for 1999.
......... o0o ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
APR ~R 19qq , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER b n ¢.
COUNCILMEMBER ·
CITY CLERK and Ex OfficiO~erk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
4
APPROVED APR 28 1999
BOB P I
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CARL HERNANDEZ
Assistant City Attorney
:pjt
March 29, 1999
S:\GPA-MAR\0749\ccres
APPENDIX I
Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P98-0749
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
Soils - Construction of the proposed project will result in 15+/- acres of the previously developed
urbanized lands covered with asphalt, concrete, buildings or other impervious surfaces, which
makes examination and identification of specific soils types impractical. Such previously
impacted soils will be further insignificantly disrupted, compacted, displaced, overcovered and
uncovered by grading, filling, trenching, installation of drainage facilities, and other ground
preparation activities necessary for urban site development. There are no onsite soils considered
"prime" for agricultural purposes by the State Department of Conservation. Standard ordinance
compliance includes the requirement for soils and grading reports prior to issuance of building
permits and adherence to applicable building codes.
Geologic Hazards - Geology of the site consists of alluvial fan and plain deposits, which are not
considered a unique geologic or physical feature. The site is currently occupied by a terminal
building and foundations of previously removed structures. The proposed project would not
create an unstable earth condition or cause changes to any geologic substructure. The project
will not expose people, structures, or property to major geologic hazards such as landslides,
mudslides or ground failure.
Although no specific geologic hazards are known to occur within the boundaries of the project
site, there are numerous geologic fractures in the earth's crust within the San Joaquin Valley,
which is bordered by major, active fault systems. All development within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Current development standards will
require the project to comply with appropriate seismic design criteria from the Uniform Building
Code, adequate drainage facility design, and complete preconstruction soils and grading studies.
As the site is outside the Alquist-Priolo Seismic Zones, no special seismic studies would be
required for this site prior to building structures for human occupancy.
Erosion / Sedimentation - No rivers, streams or beaches are near the project site to be impacted
by the proposed development. The site is bordered on the east side by the Kern River Canal, an
artificial waterway that carries water from the Kern River through urbanized portions of the City
for irrigation of agricultural areas to the City's south and west. Typical ordinance requirements
ensure that erosion, siltation or deposition of soils from the site by water run-off will not occur
through development of the project, nor through drainage of the site after construction. Wind
erosion and fugitive dust may occur during the construction process; however, normal use of
water spraying will control wind erosion impacts and should not be considered significant.
Topography - The slope of the natural terrain on-site is flat. Project development will not result in
a change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features of the area to a significant
degree.
Water
Water Quality / Quantity -
Groundwater - The project will not alter the direction or rate of flow, or substantially deplete the
quantity of groundwater resources, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. The project will not contaminate a public water
supply, substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially degrade water quality.
Water service would be provided for the development by the California Water Service Company;
however, the cumulative impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant.
Appendix I
GPA/ZC P98-0749
Page 2
Surface Water - The projectwill not result in discharge into any surface water, alter surface water
quality to a significant degree, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity. The proposal will not contaminate any public water supply. The site is bordered on the
east by the Kern Island Canal. The proposal will not result in changes in currents or the course
or direction of surface water movements. There should be no significant impact upon the the
Kern Island Canal, as stormwater flows originating or conveyed through the site will be controlled
and outletted in accordance with ordinance requirements.
Flooding/Drainage - The project will not result in changes to the course or direction of fresh water
currents, or result in changes to the amount of surface water, as the site does not contain, nor will
the proposal impact, any rivers, streams or canals. The site is not in an area subject to flooding,
therefore the proposal will not expose people or property to water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount
of surface water runoff will change as the project is developed. Current development standards
require the project to comply with adequate drainage facility design, complete preconstruction
soils and grading studies, and compliance with the City Public Works or Building Departments.
According to the Safety Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, the project
site is within an area subject to inundation in the event of a failure of the Lake Isabella dam, In a
"worst case" scenario of dam failure, the site could be impacted by flooding within 4 to 6 hours
after a failure event (Page VIII-7, Figure VIII-2, 2010 General Plan). The City of Bakersfield's
Flood Evacuation Plan, which includes the identification of flood evacuation routes, has been
adopted for use in the event of such an emergency and this impact is not regarded as significant.
Ai_.Z
Air Quality -Short-term, non-significant, air pollutant impacts would be generated on and off-site
during construction of the proposed land uses, including sources such as: dust from trenching,
grading and vehicles; exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and construction equipment; and,
emissions from asphalt paving of parking lots and roadways. Although there would be short and
long-term air quality impacts from mobile sources of pollutants generated by the estimated daily
volume of 1,756 vehicles produced by the proposed land uses on-site (see Transportation), there
will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a significant
deterioration of ambient air quality through development of this project. The proposal will not
violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Climate/Air Movement - Land uses intended or allowed through the proposed project will not
significantly alter air movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change in climate,
either locally or regionally.
Odors - Land uses resulting from the proposed project do not appear to have the potential to
create objectionable odors.
Biological Resources
Plants - The 15+/- acre project site proposed for residential development is currently vacant and
recently graded, and is devoid of any native or introduced vegetation. New plant species will be
introduced as a result of ornamental landscaping the site with urban uses. A barrier may be
created to the normal replenishment of existing plant species in the vicinity, as the site would be
completely developed. The proposal will not entirely eliminate a plant community or substantially
diminish or reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed
significant.
Appendix I
GPNZC P98-0749
Page 3
Animals - Existing animal species using the proposed project site consist of small rodents and
possibly bird species. New animal species, such as domesticated dogs and cats, wilt be
introduced as a result of occupying the site with urban uses. A barrier would be created to the
normal replenishment of existing animal species, as the site would be completely developed.
Although existing species of animals on-site would be removed through urban development, the
proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or substantially diminish or significantly
reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant.
Rare/Endangered Species - Permits and approvals for development associated with this project
will be subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and
associated 10(a)(1 )(B) and 2081 permits issued to the City by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for
development projects to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens and notify
agencies prior to grading. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan may be
reviewed at the following location: City of Bakersfield, Planning Department, 1715 Chester
Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield, CA, 93301, (805) 326-3733.
Habitat Alteration - Urban development may alter the area's habitat by introducing domesticated
or feral species of animals into the area, The project could result in the creation of a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals from the surrounding vicinity. These impacts to wildlife
habitat are considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan Bakersfield
Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), and are not considered significant for the project proposed.
The proposed project is not "significant" per CEQA, and a Certificate of Fee Exemption has been
made with the California Department of Fish and Game. The project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish
and Game Code. See attached De Minimis Impact Findings.
Transportation
Traffic/Circulation - The proposed project may generate additional vehicular movement, as
shown in Table "1 ". The project in conjunction with adjacent existing and approved development
may potentially cause an increase in traffic that may be substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may substantially impact existing
transportation systems. significantly alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods. A traffic analysis has not been required for the proposal. However, the impacts of
the proposal shall be reduced to less than significant in accordance with the Circulation Element
policies 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 traffic impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building
permits. These measures are listed in Appendix "A", "Recommended Mitigation Measures".
Appendix l
GPA/ZC P98-0749
Page 4
TABLE 1
Proposed Project
Traffic Generation
PROPOSED
LAND USE/
ZONING
OVERALL: Mixed
Use Commercial;
Commercial Center
Middle School
Commercial
Seniors Housing
Multiple Family Res.
Office-Training Center
Child Care Center
TOTAL
ACREAGE
UNITS OR
SQ. FT.
15+~- AC RES-
ENTIRE SITE
300 students
16,000 sq. ft.
80 units
60 units
1,500 sq. ft.
2,500 sq ~.
AVERAGE VEHICLE
TRIP ENDS
SHOWN BELOW FOR
EACH USE
1.09 per student
40.67 per 1.000 sq. ft.
.17 per unit
6.59 per unit
11.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
79.26 per 1,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL TRIP
ENDS
327
650
14
395
172
198
1,756 DAILY TRIPS
Source: Traffic Impact Study - East of R Street between 21st Street and 24t~ Street, City of Bakersfield, California,
December 8, 1998, Prepared for: Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Crenshaw Traffic Engineering.
Parking - The proposed development will affect existing parking by creating a demand for new
off-street parking areas due to variety of proposed land uses. These impacts will be reduced to
less than significant through compliance with the parking ordinance requirements as to the
number of parking spaces to be provided on site..
Traffic Hazards - Necessary improvements to the local circulation system as determined in the
project-specific traffic study shall be completed in accordance with recommended mitigation
measures. There would therefore be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed project.
Air/Water/Rail Systems - A rail spur extending from the Southern-Pacific-Union Pacific mainline
track north of the site presently extends along the western portion of the site to serve the former
freight terminal building. Upon resolution of ownership issues with the railroad, this spur would
be removed and the site restored and prepared in a condition suitable for the proposed
development. The project will otherwise not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological -No recorded archaeological or historical resources are located on the site. The
Archaeological Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield,, has reviewed this
proposal and has recommended in a letter dated September 16, 1998 that a qualified
professional archaeologist conduct a field survey of the property, prior to ground disturbance or
commencement of development activities. Should any cultural resources bee unearthed during ~ ',~" '''~!. '~,~,.~
.~,;.
this survey or during future site preparation activities, all work shall be halted in the area of the
Sent By: ~C; , 805 664 2415;
Sep-16-98 4:30PM; Page 2/3
~ALIFORNIA ..~
HISTORICAL , FeESNO
'BESOURCES
KERN
INFORMATION KINGS
MADERA
SYSTEM " TULARE
Southern Sen Joequirt Valley
Information Center
California State University, lekerefieid
900~ $toekdille Hllplwey
Bakeafield, CallbrMl 033~1~-::L019
805/664-2269 FAX 106/664-24Zl
Eraell: ablldwIn$c~ubak.edu
TO:
Mr. C. Robert Frapwell
Construction Coordinator
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
] 300 i 7th Street. City Centre
Bakersfield, CA 93301
DATE:
September 16. 1998
RE: Kern County Superintendent of Schools Site - Between
Street to Kern Island Canal.
(RS# 98-265)
'"2]"i'~24'h Street~;~ind R
County: Kern
Map(s): Oildale (and Geeford) 7.5'
The Archaeological Information Center is under contract to the State Office of
Histodc Preservation and is responsible for the local management of the California
Historical Resources Inventories. The Center is funded by research fees and a grant from
the State Office of Hislode 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.
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The following are the results of a search of the cultural resources files at the
Southern San )oaquin 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
(7/98), the California Historical Landmarks, the California Inventory of Historic
Resources. and the California Points of Historical Interest. The following summarizes the
known historical resources information currently available for this subject property based
in part on the sources outlined above.
PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS
According to the information in our files, there have been no field surveys
conducted within the project area. There have been eight surveys conducted within a
one-mile radius of the project area. A list of bibliographic references is available if
needed.
Sent By: ZC; 805 664 2415; Sep-16-98 4:31PM; Page 3/3
98-265)
KNO'~/N CULTURAL RESOURCES ON THI~ SUBJECT PROPERTY AND
SURROUNDING AREAS
There are no recorded sites within the project area. There are two recorded
cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the project area; P-15-004187 {Ca-Ker-
4i87/H, the fire station site with prehistoric and historic cultural elements) and P-15-
002507 (Ca-Ker-2507). Site Ca-Ker-2507 was the former location of Reeder Hill, the
central mound for the village of VYoilu. %X/oilu was the chief village for the Yowlumne
Yokuts, the Indians who lived along the Southern Sierra Foothills, along the Kern River,
and near the southeastern edge of Kern Lake. Reader Hill was leveled to create space for
the Santa Fe passenger depot, and for railroad fill for the lines between the cities of
Bakersfield and Mojave.
There are no known cultural resources within the project area that are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places, California Inventory of Historic Places, or the
California Historic Resource Inventory. California 5tare Historic Landmarks No. 690 (Site
of Last Home of Alexis Godey), No. 277 (Garces Circle), and No. 382 (Col. Thomas
Baker Memorial) are within a one-mile radius of the project area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
~,/e understand this 14-acre project area is currently vacant and held in varoius
parcels, and will be developed in various phases. Given the existence of cultural
resources in the vicinity and the size of the parcel - especially with regard to site Ca-Ker-
2507 - prior to any further ground disturbance we recommended that a qualified
professional archaeologist monitor all subsurface construction activities.
!f you have any questions or comments. please don't hesitate to contact us at
(805) 664-2289.
By
Erik Zaborsky
Staff Archaeologist
Fee: $90.O0/hr.
Date; September 16. 1998
Invoice # 8217
9-18-1998 8: ]9AM FROM 'LIF WATER SERVICE: 8eB3962d. 1 ] P. 2
CALIFORNI-,~ WATER SERVICE COMPANY
3725 SOUI~I H STREET · IAKERSFIELD, CA 9330,S-4,538 · CSOSJ 396,2400
I&KERSFIliLO DISTRICT
September 17, 1998
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
1300 17~ Street
Bakersfield, Califo~ 93301
Re: 21,t and 24~ Street, and east of "R'
Street to the Kern Island canal
Dear Sirs:
We have received your inquiry regarding the availab~ity of po?~ble water service to the
above referencecL We have reviewed .this request and have de~errni,ed this property is
within our servic~ area,
Furnishing servic~ for the proper~y w~l not have a significm~t effect upon our present
supply and we do not feel that it ~ have a s~ific~xt effect on our future supply.
Potable water meet~ all federal and state water quality stancL~rds is av~lable to the
above referenced property.
If the ~exvice requirements exceed the capability of our existing f~cffities or ff the
extension of our facXlities is necessary, service ~ould be provided in accordance to Rule
15 of the State Public Utaities ComuUssion Eu/es and ReguIations,~
V /~~
ry s
e o
y ---!T. M~ "
e Manager
MTM/I1
cc: John Simpson
Mel B~rd
Tim Treloar
Rudy Valles
MAIn, IWlAI · OBOY~IAI · I, ALOI yelt~l - ~ · kUO-PCNIFtSULA · $II. MA * SOUTH SAN ItANCllCO · ITo~rroN, VlSA.UA. W~ITLAICE - WIB. OWS
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE:
March 18.1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mike McCabe. Assistant Planner
Stephen L. Walker, Traffic Engineer '4~
Callruns Comments of March 17, 1999
General Plan Amendment P98-0749 - NE Corner 21s' Street and R Street
Kern County Superintendent of Schools, LI to MUC
We received the Callruns comments concerning the subject project late yesterday via FAX. Please
accept this response memo addressing each point in their letter.
We have no objections to being included in consultation and review for any revisions to
the study.
The use of the higher estimated cost of $60,000 for the modification at the intersection Q
Street and 24'~ Street is acceptable. Calm based their cost on additional work that would
be involved based on their review of the existing plans and improvements. We do not
agree with increasing the cost for inflation. This is not necessary, our TDF fund where
these monies are deposited is an interest bearing fund.
Use of the Cultruns formula for percentage share is acceptable, we have used this in the
past on Calwans facilities. The share for the Q Street/24th Street improvements would be
6.1% of $60,000, which is $3,660.
We partially concur that the two SR 178 ramps at Union Avenue should have been studied.
Estimated project turning volume data was not shown in the study for these locations.
When computing 'the volumes using the trip distribution diagram, Exhibit 4, page 16 of
the traffic study, they do meet the levels as indicated by Caltrans for the southern
intersection only. Our computations show, when looking at the turinrig movement splits,
the northern intersection has 43 and 42 peak trips in the AM and PM, respectively. This
does not exceed the 50 peak threshold.
Due to the lateness in receiving these comments, it is up to the Commission's prerogative as to
whether or not to act on any or all of the comments. Items 2 and 3 could be easily addressed with
a change in conditions, the need for further study could delay action on the project.
cc: PW Memo Files
Marjan Shaw, CE IV - Subdivisions
Traffic Engineering File - P980749-GPA-Downtown School-Caltrans.wpd
SLW:BJD:M
S:~At!~Ptannin$~)80r/49-43PA-E)owllown Schooi-Cldtranl.wlxt
Appendix I
GPA/ZC P98-0749
Page 5
find, and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the findings and recommend appropriate
mitigation measures to be incorporated into project development.
Historical - The site is partially vacant and otherwise occupied by vacant commercial/service
structures. No historical structures or other resources of historical character have been identified
onsite or will be impacted by development on the site. The project will not eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory or result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object.
Land Use
Compatibility - The proposed project will include educational, residential and commercial uses.
The existing land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site include industrial/service and
commercial uses, and some residences. Central Park, a City-maintained recreational site, is
located on the south side of 21't Street between "R" Street and the Kern Island Canal. This park
includes a community building and an art museum which is soon to undergo renovation and
expansion. The surrounding uses are indicated in Table "2". These uses are compatible with
proposed land uses. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted environmental plans or
goals of the community, disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community,
or create a significant land use compatibility problem. The proposed development scheme is
consistent with the requested mixed use land use designation and zoning that is compatible with
the mixed use development objectives for the downtown area contained in the Land Use
Element.
TABLE 2
Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties
LAND USE ZONING
LOCATION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE
NORTH Light Industrial, Light & General Service Industrial
Service Industrial Manufacturing
SOUTH
Open Space - Parks
Commercial Center
Park, Community
Center, Art Museum
EAST Light Industrial Light Manufacturing Commercial,
Residential
WEST Light Industrial Light Manufacturing Service Commercial,
Residential
General Plan/Zoning -The present land use designation on the site is Light Industrial, with
existing zoning of Light manufacturing (M-1). The proposal will amend the land use to Mixed use
Commercial and the zoning of the site to Commercial Center (C-C). This change will not result in
a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area, as it will incrementally
expand the recently applied downtown area designation and mixed use development zoning
concept onto an adjacent area that has suffered from lack of economically viable development
apprpriate for the area. The proposal is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan policies and implementation measures and will not significantly conflict with
established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area.
Growth Inducement - The proposed project will not induce substantial growth. Rather, the
,o ...
,
Appendix l
GPNZC P98-0749
Page 6
Prime Agricultural Land -'No agricultural crops currently exist on site and the site does not
contain prime agricultural soils. Removal of 15 acres of land through the proposed project will
not convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of
adjacent prime agricultural land.
Public Services
Police - Police protection for the area is currently provided by the Bakersfield Police Department.
Current City Police service standards require 1.32 officers for each 1,000 people in the city.
Projected increase of between 216 and 272 new residents into the City would necessitate the
addition of up to .36 additional law enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service.
However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this
development and is not deemed significant.
Fire ~ Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint
fire protection agreement between the City and County. Projected increase of up to 272 new
residents and an unspecified number of new residential, commercial and institutional structures
into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel
to maintain current levels of service; however, this potential increase in fire protection services
can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
Schools - The project itself will result in construction of middle school with a capacity of 300
students and an office training center of an unspecified number of enrollees, and thereby respond
to a portion of the presently existing need for public and independently provided educational
facilities.
The proposed development of the residential portion of the project could produce 60 attached
housing units for family occupancy and could generate approximately 30 school-age children as
indicated in Table "3" (assuming that occupancy of the 80 unit elderly portion will be restricted
accordingly by age). This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school
facilities, which can be mitigated at least in part by the proposed middle school within the project.
Existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues should reduce impacts on
schools to less than significant. Project review by appropriate elementary and high school
districts may, however, identify significant impacts to school facilities through this project, and
may recommend additional mitigation measures be added to the project.
TABLE 3
School Children Generation
(Residential Portion- excluding Senior Citizen Housing)
TYPE AND ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL
NUMBER OF K - 8 9 - 12 PUPILS
DWELLING
UNITS
60 multiple family 22 8 30
Source: 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS.
Parks / Recreation - The project proposes an increase in population of between 216 and 272
persons within the area and would result in an impact upon the quality and quantity of existing
recreational opportunities, and create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. As indicated
in Table "4", the park land requirements for the proposed project is calculated based on the
General Plan and City Ordinance Park Standards of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. Total park
acreage estimated for the project is .68 acres.
Appendix I
GPA/ZC P98-0749
Page 7
TABLE 4
Park Need - Proposed Project
Type of DWELLING PARK PARK ACREAGE
Dwelling UNITS FACTOR NEEDED
Unit
Multiple Family 60 .0057 .34
Senior Citizen 80 .0057 (not accounting up to .46
Multiple Family for occup. restriction)
TtlTAI .... RI1
Source: 1990 Federal Census; City of Bakersfield Planning Department,
Solid Waste / Disposal - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or
substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The development will not breach
published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control.
Facility Maintenance - Street or other public facility improvements from the proposed
development and eventual buildup of the area will result in an increase in maintenance
responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant.
Utilities
Water - 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.
Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area. Expansion of all
wastewater utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered
significant. The proposed project will not require the extension of any sewer trunk line that will
serve new development.
Storm Drainage - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems in the area. Expansion of all storm
drain utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered
significant.
Natural Gas - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area. Expansion of all natural gas
utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
Electricity - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area. Expansion of all electric utilities
would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
Appendix l
GPA/ZC P98-0749
Page 8
Communications -The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area. Expansion of all
communication systems would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not
considered significant.
Population / Employment / Housing
The proposed project includes a total of 160 multiple family residential units on a portion of the 15
acre site. This site could support from 216 up to a potential maximum of 272 residents (see
Table "5"). The proposed project will not induce a substantial concentration or displacement of
people, or significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of the area, or affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing.
The proposed project could create 17,500 square feet of commercial and instructional uses, with
a potential projected employment of at least 31 number of people (see Table "5", Population and
Employment). The proposal may impact, in a beneficial way, the temporary and permanent
income distribution, employment and/or tax revenues of the City of Bakersfield or County of Kern.
The project will not, however, result in significant reduced employment opportunities for low and
moderate income socio-economic groups or impact the social affiliation or interaction of the
neighborhood. There will not be a significant impact on the privacy of surrounding areas.
TABLE 5
Population/Employment Projections
PROPOSED DWELLING PERSON PER POPULATION/
LAND UNITS OR HOUSEHOLD OR EMPLOYMENT
USE SQUARE SQ. FT. PER ESTIMATE
FOOTAGE EMPLOYEE
Multiple Family 60 Units 2.28 per household 136
Residential
Senior Citizen
Residential
I Middle School I 300 Students I
I Office Training Center I 1,500 sq. ft. I
80 Units 1 to 2.28 per 80 to 136
household
300 students
variable
Commercial 16,000 sq.ft. 510 sq. ft. Per
employee
31 employees
Sources: Gruen, Gruen and Associates, Employment Densities by Type of Workplace, July 1985. 1990 Federal Census and City
of Bakersfield Planning Department, May 1992. Traffic Impact Study - East of R Street between 21't Street and 24~ Street, City of
Bakersfield, California, December 8, 1998, Prepared for: Kern County Superintendent of Schools.
Health Hazards I Public Safety
No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as
a result of the proposed development. The proposal does not involve a risk of explosions or
releasing hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. Two potentially hazardous sites have
been identified either on or near the 15 acre site. One is a former foundry use where there was
evidence of leakage from underground storage tanks. Removal of underground storage tanks
Appendix I
GPA/ZC P98-0749
Page 9
and remediation of affected soils has been completed; and no'further evident hazard on that site
exists. Another contaminated site, McKinney Air Conditioning has experienced leaking
underground tanks, and a plume potentially affecting the groundwater table has been identified
around that site. Remediation and monitoring is being undertaken by the County of Kern
Environmental Services, and is ongoing at this time. This proposal will be circulated to that
department for its recommendation on appropriate mitigations with respect to ground surface
alteration and future development on this site. Any recommended measures will be included as
conditions of approval for future development on the subject site, or appropriate project redesign
will be required and ensured through future site plan review or conditional use permit review
processes.
Noise
Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. 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. Proposed
residential and commercial/instructional uses will be screened from one another, and from
adjacent offsite uses, in accordance with Title 17 Ordinance standards.
Aesthetics
The urbanization of the site will alter the open space qualities of the area to a minor degree. The
proposed project is not intending any uses or development in the area that would result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will not have a
substantial, demonstrational negative affect.
LicJht and Glare
Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities surrounding the proposed
development and anticipated vehicle traffic. Site plan review of the proposed development will
evaluate building location, material selection, lighting design, parking and signage placement to
buffer proposed light impacts from surrounding developments. Proposed uses should not cause
significant light or glare to existing or future development surrounding the site.
Natural Resources
No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the
proposed project.
Energy Usage
The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes,
including uses of nonrenewable energy resources, during the initial and continued phases of the
project. The project will not result in significant energy requirements or lack of energy efficiency
by amount or fuel type of a project's life cycle. The proposal will not result in significant effects on
local and regional energy supplies or on requirements for additional energy capacity or sources,
nor will the project result in significant effects on peak and base period demands for electricity
and other forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it
encourage activities which result in the wasteful or substantial use of significant amounts of fuel,
water, or energy. The project will not result in significant effects on projected transportation
energy requirements or in the project's overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
Appendix l
GPNZC P98-0749
Page 10
II. MANDATORYFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project does not 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 impact important examples of the
major periods of California history or pre-history.
The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable,
or for which the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, than current projects and possible future projects.
The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable,
or for which the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable, when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, than current projects and possible future projects.
The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Reference List
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County,
Kern COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990.
2. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan DEIR, The Planning Center, July, 1989.
3. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of
Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989.
4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
5 Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)( 1 )(B)
and 2081 permits, 1994.
6 Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
7. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
8. Traffic Impact Study - East of R Street between 21 .t Street and 24th Street, City of Bakersfield,
California, December 8, 1998, Prepared for: Kern County Superintendent of Schools
9. Letter from Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield,
September 16, 1998.
MJM
s:gpa-mar\0749\ai
EXHIBIT "A"
Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P98-0749
Recommended-Mitigation Measures
Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities on the site, a qualified
archaeologist shall complete an archaeological study in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. All measures recommended by such study shall be
completed prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. In the event that human
remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. Within 30 days of
completion of such field work a technical report should be submitted to the
Archaeological Information Center. Proof of compliance with any recommendations
resulting from such evaluation, if required, shall be submitted to the Southern San
Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at California State University,
Bakersfield, and to the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department.
The applicant shall comply with the traffic mitigation measures and percentage share
facilities contribution per the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program, as outlined in
the project-specific traffic study completed by Crenshaw Traffic Engineering, December
8, 1998, as may hereinafter be modified by the city of Bakersfield Traffic Engineer.
Should any substantial change in the types, proportion or scale of contemplated land
uses occur prior to initiation of grading and/or construction activities, a revised traffic
study may be required to be submitted to the Traffic Engineer, who may then require
compliance with revised mitigation and share payment measures as may be determined
following additional project review and analysis.
MJM
s:gpa-mar\O749\ea
P98-O749.ea
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Applicant:
Address:
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
1300 17th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533
Project Title/Location (include City and County)
General Plan AmendmentJZone Change Case No. P98-0749 located between 21 st Street and 24th Street,
and "R" Street and the Kern Island Canal (north of Central Park), in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern.
Project Description:
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the
land use designation from Light Industrial to Mixed Use-Commercial on 15 ± acres; concurrent zone change
from Light Manufacturing (M-1) to Commercial Center (C-C) on the same 15 + acres.
Finding of Exemption:
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California
Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the
Lead Agency that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard to
wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711
of the State of California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by
the above-referenced absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a
Negative Declaration for this project.
e3/17/1998 12:5] 289~884888 SYSTE~ PLAk~ING PAGE
March 17, 1999
OPA 1;98-0749
KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
171.5 Clms~ Avenne
Bakm~eid, CA 93301
Atm: Mi~tael J. McC, a~ Assistsnt Plmmff
Thsnk you for submiuin~ Inilial Stmiy for a Genmal Plan Ames~n,-~t and Zone _Change for tim
above x,zE.,uw. at 'ect Th~ projet is located betw~n 21" and 24th Stret, and betexm 'R'
Street and Kern Is~ Camel (noxth of Cenn'ai Perk in the Bakensfiold do,,,~wu area). Our
exnmimmk, m of yore docmneni included areview of issues pedain~ to tx'x~c.
FoUcwin2 our xcview of the Project, we have these
· Exhibit'A'~' · M_sasu~s)ofths__~noti~ststcstlmttlmTrafficlmpsot
Study CrIs) ma~tx~mod~ed by the ci~ ofBn~n~,,ld l~nd~c ~-,~w~ .Cai~ slmll
be included for loceions in its dom,,in; '
· The TIS i~ futnro roadway imlxovmaents at tho 'q ' 8treot/'24· Street inlx:rsec~on
inttm202on:emo. Them_'_aaprov,ammm~d~~~~
.sttipi~ at the ima=a=-i~. Th~ coat rotirene of $40,0o0 b too low for
m,i~ ThsoummiinfiationrMsis2.2%psry~sramianticipmzdtorem,;nsmblsin
ths fo,.~s,~bl? future. ~, tiz futm~ cost for ths inlsns~Sn wm~d bs
C~'m~o, tim pmjoct shdl I~ m..,..-vo-..ible for 6.1% (I I01(2,625-807)) ofth~
impmvmzsm ooss. Tlat i,. $S.655 ($92,70O x 6.1Sl);
o addition, the innnx,.llc-ks a~ the $R 178 mn msd Union Avemue should hav~ been
· since:2~%°f.tlF'nffi°willimpmcat~'locmion. Itd~rp,~licm,-u, sysisis
ui22ea'cdwheathc cctPeak-hourtnp2maemfimaontoaSb~_hi~hwayfacffityexceed~
aalril~s~i~Stril~d~ingti~.~v~~ This would mmslsle inm 71 trip~and6S
· An~o~a~tl~mitm~tl~o~tRrmtht~AS~cTforact,~foralyworkdm~
witt~th~Sh~R0W. R~i~dr~h~ofall'~rk~mtol~bmit~ithth~
lim~io~ Work plam~l ~ tl~ 8~t~ ROll ~ be l~rfo~ to S_ _~__e
· l~citi~ ~t ao cmt to th~
83/17/1998 12:53 2894884888 SYSTEM PL~I~IN~ PAS[ 82
If you have any ~ons plems~ ~ me at (559) 48S-7397.
Sincerely,
O~c.~ oft 'on H.anning
Steve WarInch-, Traffic ~--gineer
Wallace W. Crenshaw, Crenshaw Traffic Engineering
Sent By: sslvlc; 805 5~ 24.15; MaP-17-~n 1:5BPM; Page 1/1
C_ALIFORNIA ·
HISTORICAL :~'
FRESNO
BESOURCES KERN
INFORMATION runes
SY~I'EM 'TULARE
NUchael J, McCabe, Asdstant Planner
City of Bakerstidal Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Soilthem San Jean Vdley
Intonation Center
Calfonda late Uldvemlty, Bakerdeld
940~ fieok-' St., HilbwiF/
Bakemeekl, C~lllana 'grt~4At)9,e
80B/gO4 .'~89 FAX BOg/OH .~'l": $
Emll: '~-f41dldtmubak. edu
March 17, 1999
RE: General Plan Amendment P98-074c): Kern County Superintendent of Schools Site,
21" to 24rh Streets and P, Street to Kern Island Canal
Dear Mike,
This is to follow up on our conversation this moming regarding the above
referenced pro)act. The Information Center conducted a Records Search for this project
(P~# 98-265) on September 16, 1998, for Robert Frapwell, Construction Coordinator for
the Kern County Superintendent of ~:hools. At that time we recommended that a
qualified professional archaeologist conduct on site monitoring dudng all ground
disturbance activities in the event that cultural resources are unearthed. As you know
~ere have been numerous prehistoric and historic-era artifacts and features unearthed
dudng various projects in Bakersfield, i.e. the Arena project and the central Rre Station.
Also the central mound for the Yowlumne Yokuts Village of Woilu, (CA-KER-2507) is
lcx~ed dose by in the area formerly known as Reeder Hill, which was leveled to create
space for the Santa Fe Railroad Passenger Depot.
Given all these circumstances, we once again recommend that a qualified
professional archaeologist (preferably one with knowledge and experience in the history
and prehlstory of the Bakerstleld area) be present on site during all ground disturbance
activities related to this project.
If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at
(8053 664-2289.
Yours truly.
Adele Baldwin
Assistant Coordinator
Sent By: ss]vlc; 805 664 2415; MAP-18-99 3:55PM; Page 1/2
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL *~
FRESNO
RESOURCES KnN
INFORMATION rues
MADERA
SYSTEM TULARE
Southam San Joaquln Vdiey
Infemlagml Centel
California, Sicate Unlvemlty, Baker/Ira
9OOcl, 8took~le Hfimmy
eakemlldd, bilenee 933u.409e
80E/ie4-22~ FAX BOl/e~1441E
Eranil: abaldwlnl,c~u"
Marc Gauthier, Senior Planner
CIty of Bakersfield Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
March 18, 1999
RE: General Plan Amendment P98-0749: Kern County Superintendent of Schools Site,
21" to 24]h Streets and R Street to Kern Island Canal (AIC# L-99-007)
Dear MarC
! had a telephone conversation today with Robert Frapweil, Construdion
Coordinator for the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, regarding the above
referenced project and the recommendations our office made regarding the possible
discovery of subsurface cultural resources dudrig ground disturbance activities related to
thts project. Our odBinal recommendation was that a qualified professional archaeologist
should condud on site monitoring dudng ground disturbance activities, so that any
cultural mateddais that may be unearthed could be immediately evaluated and mitigated
if possible.
~Y,/e understand there will be several phases for this project that will take place
over some period of time and involve different portions of the 14-acre site during each
phase. Our office believes. and Mr. Frapwell has agreed, that the following revised
recommendations will address our concams about possible negative impacts to cultural
resources that may be discovered on site, and Mr. Frapwel!'s concerns.
1)
During removal of the e~isting metal buildings, a qualified professional
archaeologist will monitor all ground disturbance activities. If cultural
resources are .discovered, the archaeologist will make an evaluation as to the
resource's possible htstoric,/prehistoric significance and importance.
2) If formal recordation of the resources will mitigate possible impacts to less than
significant, no further continuous monitoring will be needed during subsequent
project phases. However. the recommendations of the qualified professional
should be implemented in any case.
Sent By: ssJvlc; 805 68~ 2415; Mar-18-99 3:55PM; Page 212
Marc Gauthter, Senior Planner
City of Bakersfield
GPA P98-0749
Page two
3)
Provided mitigation is accomplished as outlined in # 2 above, we recommend
that the professional archaeologist conduct on site monitoring periodically, i.e.
once weekly, in order to determine if (additional) cultural resources have been
discovered.
The archaeologist shall provide a list or possible artifacts and/or features that
may be encountered dudng 8round disturbance activities to P, obert Frapwell.
the projeers Construction Coordinator. Mr. Frapwell will provide this list to
all individuals who will be workin8 on this project site, and inform them of
their responsibility to report any cultural materials that are found on site to
their supervisors immediately. The archaeologist should be called in to
evaluate the findings and make a mitigation determination.
~0C/e appredate the cooperation of all those concerned about the preservation and
appreciation of the rich cultural heritage in Bakersfield. If you have any questions or
comments. please don't hesitate to contact me at (805) 664-2289.
Yours truly,
Adele Baldwin
Assistant Coordinator
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
March 25, 1999
TO:
FROM:
Ralph E. Huey, Director, Office of Environmental Services
Vince Zaragoza, Principal Planner XJ~
SUBJECT:
Proposed Senior Citizens Housing Construction Project Located at 600 21"
Street on Land Owned by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools
(KCSOS)
We appreciate your recent comments regarding the above noted project. As you are aware, on
March 18, 1999 the Bakersfield Planning Commission approved the KCSOS request for a
General Plan Amendment and rezoning on land which is bounded by 24th Street on the north, the
Kem Island Canal on the east, 21st Street on the south and R Street on the west. The commission
made your concern about a possible remaining underground fuel tank at 601 24th Street (the old
Smiser Freight Warehouse) a condition to be mitigated before development permits are issued by
the City.
Community Development (CD) restarted the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) on
the senior housing project at~er the Planning Commission acted on the KCSOS proposal on
March 18th (the housing site contains about 4 acres of the 13.41 acre KCSOS property). A NEPA
mitigation measure to your environmental concern, will be a part of our agreement authorizing
the expenditure of federal funds for the housing project only after the issue of the possible
remaining fuel tank at 601 24th Street is satisfactory resolved.
Please feel flee to contact us if you have any questions regarding this matter.
XC:
George Gonzales, CD Coordinator
Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner
David Bates, Development Associate
Mike McCabe, Assistant Planner
Environ/SCHsg. 18
BAKERSFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 16, 1999
Vince Zaragoza, Principal Planner ces~~-~'
Ralph E. Huey, Director, Office of Environmental Servi
Proposed Senior Citizen Housing Project Site Located at 600 21st Street
On Monday, March 15, 1999, I received a copy of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of
the Pacific Southern Foundry site located at 600 21 st Street. Upon review of this site assessment,
I find that it does adequately address heavy metals at this prior foundry site. Heavy metals, as
well as slag and molding sands were removed from the site between 1989 and 1991, as part of
the demolition process.
My memo of February 3, 1999, addresses two concerns on this site. One concern was the
possibility of heavy metals, the second concern was that a possible underground storage tank
remained on the old Smiser Freight warehouse portion of the property. This site assessment
adequately addresses my concern about the foundry property, however, it does not address the
old Smiser Freight property.
REH/dm
cc: David Bates
George Gonzales
Marc Gauthier
02/04/99 THU 15:39
02/~3/99 16:~
FAX 805 328 1548
'er8 326 0576
BFLD ECON & COMM DEV
BF!) HAZ MAT
'~'~-~ PLANNINC DEPT
001
~ooz
BA'KE KS F I E L D
FIRE DEPARTMENT
,o
·,
MEMORANDUM
i)ATiZ: Februry 3, 1999
FROM: Eevlrenmentsl Services
ire at 21 S
~UB,IEC'~: Proposed Senior Citizen Houslnz Project S 600
· I ~mv~ r~viewed your memo of January 27, 1999 and the attached environmental documents.
The initial study/environmental assessment stat~s that the May 22, 1998 letter f~om Kern County
Environmental Hearth m_enti'oned no a~vironmeatal pzobl~ns with this site. This appears to be
corr~et however, a. previous lever dated April. 29, 1997, also included in this. packet, states that
"' one .und~l~und storage tm3k still exists on this property. (i.e. two und~fg~omd storage tanks
' were permffi. gd at the Smiser FreiSht w~ehouse, and only one mk was remov=d).
This initial' cnvironmental as~s~nent also inc, orre~y identifies the former occupant at 600 2 l'
· street as an iron foundry. We have ~le~ shone that this was a alloy steel and non ferrous
foun&T, Which would th..erefore utilize !~avy metals, niakel and chrome which may, in soluble
· 'fdrm, be b~_-_~rdous.
· '~ 'l~fy r~cozn~.endations are to x~luire a full Phase I, and possibly limit~cl Phue I], Site
· '. As~samLmt. I'Wo~kl recommend this Site _ASSessment in¢lude some limited soil ~utpiins in the
area otthe previou~m~ltin~ and !xawin8 op~ations of the old foundry, and ~at the~c soil
staples iTwlud¢ wmposit~ samples to at least 12 inches and be analyzed for metals.
cc:.D~'vi~tbat~'
{tK)rg.~ Oonzales
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
January27., 1999
TO:
FROM:
Ralph Huey, Director of Environmental Services
/
Vince Zaragoza, Principal Planner V ~7
SUBJECT: Proposed Senior Citizens Housing Project Site at 600 21st Street
On October 26, 1998 we referred an Initial Study to your department for review and comment.
The study was prepared for Golden Empire Affordable Housing, Inc., which is proposing to
acquire about four acres of a 13.41 acre parcel owned by the Kern County Superintendent of
Schools (KCSS) for a senior citizens housing project (see the enclosed location map). On
November 3, 1998, Assistant Fire Chief Blair raised some environmental concerns about the
project with the enclosed electronic mail letter by asking us to contact you for clarificati61q.
Enclosed for your background information are three documents relating to the remediation of
hazardous wastes on the proposed site. The November 30, 1990 memo is from Jim Clevenberg
of City Building which states no permit was required for abandonment of a monitoring well. The
April 29, 1997 letter from County Environmental Health identifies what was done to remediate a
leaking diesel fuel tank on Parcel 4, which contains the proposed project site. The May 22, 1998
letter from County Environmental Health indicates no environmental concerns for the property
owned by KCSS. We are also enclosing the initial study.
If your department still has an environmental concern, please provide me by no later than
February 5, (Friday) 1999 with your written comments and clarification. On or about February
9, 1999 we wish to conclude our environmental review for the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) by submitting a request to HUD for the release of funds for the proposed project.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
XC:
Kirk Blair, Assistant Fire Chief
David Bates, Development Associate
George Gonzales, CD Coordinator
Environ/S .C .Hsg. 13
E~VIRCNMENTAL HEALTH SE~' viCES DEPARTMENT
STEVE McCALLEY, R.E.H.S., Director
2700 'M' STREET, SUITE 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370
Voice: (805) 862-8700
Fax: (805) 862-8701
TTY Relay: (800) 735-2929
'IESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DAWD PRICE III, RMA DIRECTOR
Engineering & Survey Services Department
Environmental Health Services Department
Planning Department
Roads Department
May 22, 1998
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
1300 17th Street
City Centre
Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533
Attention: C. Robert Frapwell
SUBJECTS: BLOCKS 144, 145, 174, 175, 184, AND 185 IN THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA.
Dear Mr. Frapwell:
I have reviewed the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department,
Hazardous Materials Management Program's files 'for information regarding the city
blocks noted above. The only facility in the subject area with a current
environmental issue is McKenny's Air Conditioning at 2323 "R" Street. They are
planning to use vapor extraction to remediate the gasoline contamination from an
underground storage tank release.
As always, this office is available to assist you. If you have any questions or
comments, please call me, at (805) 862-8700.
Sincerely,
Steve McCalley, Director
By: Lydia V. von Sydow, REA
Hazardous Materials Inspector
Unified Hazardous Materials/Waste Program
04/29/98 WED 09:51 FAX 805 .~'" 8701 K C ENVIRONMENTAL HLTH ~ 002
gNVIRONMENTAL HEALTH S~.,~VICES DEPARTMENT
STEVE McCALLEY, R.E.H.$., Director
ZT00 'M' STREET, SUITE 300
BAKERSFIELDt CA 83301-2370
Voice: (Ms) 862-8700
FAX= (605) 862-6701
TTY Relay; (600) 735-211ZV
e-ml|l: e~@krrm'om~J~zom
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DA V/DO PRICE III, RMA DO/RECTOR
Commudty DevelepmeN Progreta Oeperlrnent
Engineering i Survey 8erdoee Department
Environmental Health Beryltea Department
Planning DepartmR
Roede Department
April 29, 1997
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
1300 17th Street
City Centre
Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533
Attention: C, Robert Frapwell
SUBJECTS: SIX PARCELS BETWEEN 21sT AND 24TM
CALIFORNIA.
STREET, BAKERSFIELD,
Dear Mr. Frapwell'
I have reviewed the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department,
Hazardous Materials Management Program's files for evidence of underground
storage tanks or hazardous materials concerns on the properties noted above. The
file search revealed the following information.
In October, 1989, four underground storage tanks were removed from area of
parcel//4, the Pacific Southern Foundry site. Diesel contamination was detected
beneath one of the tanks. The contamination and the depth to groundwater at 32
feet required that the site be remediated. The contaminated soil was excavated and
aerated. The aerated soil was used as backfill. The investigation was closed on
April 25, 1991,
On March 5, 1992, this Department investigated two floor drains containing oily
waste. It was determined that the drains discharged into the sewer system. The
waste was removed and the lines were sealed.
Adjacent to the northwest side of parcel//t are McKenny's Air Conditioning and the
Smiser Freight warehouse.
Two underground storage tanks were permitted at the Smiser Freight warehouse.
One tank was removed on October 25, 1989. The case was closed on December
12, 1989. There is no additional information on the second tank.
04,'29:98 WED 09:52 FAX 805 Bo~ 8701 K C ENVIRONMENTAL HLTH ~ 003
v 1i 8, underground storage tank was removed from McKenny's
O e~ ~e
action o~ t~ co~tamjination ~:$ ~ee~ p~a~ned to mm~dmW t~o ~i~, '
As always, this office is available to assist you. If you have any questions or
comments, please call me, at (805) 862-8700.
Sincerely,
Steve McCalley, Director
By: Lydia V. yon Sydow, REA
Hazardous Materials Inspector
Unified Hazardous Materials/Waste Program
San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution
Control
District
March 2, 1999
Mike McCabe, Assistant Planner
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: General Plan Amendment No. P98-0749
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed this project and has
the following comments.
Activities associated with this project, such as any construction planned, would contribute dust to an air
mass that already exceeds the state and federal health standards for PM,o and the project's emissions would
impede the District's efforts to reach attainment of those standards for the Valley. However, compliance
with the Distnct's Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust Rules would constitute reasonable efforts and reduce the
impact of this project to less-than-significant with regards to air quality.
In addition, a CAL-OSHA qualified asbestos survey of any existing structures is required, prior to any
renovation or demolition activity. An asbestos survey is necessary to identify the presence of any asbestos
containing building material (ACBM) having the potential for disturbance. The removal of any identified
ACBM must be conducted by a certified asbestos contractor in accordance with CAL-OSHA requirements.
If you have any questions concerning asbestos related requirements, please contact the Asbestos Section of
this agency at (661 ) 326-6900.
These determinations were nmde from the information supplied with this project. If any modifications to the
project occur, this determination may become invalid.
The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on this consultation. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact me at (661 ) 326-6980.
2
Joe O'Bannon
Air Quality Planner, Southern Region
APCD Ref #: 8990036
David L. Crow
Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer
1999 Tb) umne Street Suite 200 * Fresno CA 93721 · :209} 49:? 10O0 · FAX (2091233 2057
Northern Region
4230 K~eman Avenue. Sd~e 130 · Modesto. CA 95356
(209} 545-7000 · Fax ~209) 545-8652
Central Region
1999 Tuolumne Street. Suite 200. Fresno. CA 93721
(209) 497-1000, Fax I209) 233-2057
Southern Regioll
2700 M Street Suite 275 · Bakersfield. CA 93~2't"
(805) 862.5200 · Fax (805l 862-5201),_
,
Winston H. Hickox
Secretar), for
Environmental
Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
Steven T. Butler, Acting Chair
EA~.,~RSrlELD
CAf'Y O~
pLANNiNG
18 February1999
Mike McCabe
City of Bakers field Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakers field, California 933 01
Gray Davis
Governor
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P9-0749, KERN COUNTY
We have received the proposal to amend Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakers field 2010
General Plan by changing the land use designation from Light Industrial to Mixed Use-Commercial on
15 acres. It is anticipated that a middle school, a commercial center, senior housing, multiple family
residences, an office-training center, and a child care center will be built on the site. The project site is
located between 21 st and 24th Streets, east of "R" Street and west of the Kern Island Canal.
Please advise the developers of the land that because the construction will disturb more than five acres,
compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No.
CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity (Waste Discharge
Requirements, Order No. 92-08-DWQ) will be required. Furthermore, before construction begins, a
Notice of Intent (NOD to comply with the permit must be submitted to the State Water Resources
Control Board and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please call me at (559) 445-5919 or look at the State
Board's web site at http://www. swrcb.ca.gov. for more information.
]/ARMA BENNETT
Water Resources Control Engineer
California Environmental Protection Agency
~ RecycledPaper
Star Petroleum
FUELS · LUBRICANTS · SOLVENTS
SERVING KERN COUNTY SINCE 1964
Mr. Michael J. McCabe
Planning Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
March 7, 1999
Subject: GPA/ZC P98-0749
Dear Mr. McCabe,
Without more specifics, we feel there are some potentially
negative impacts both to our location and the proposed project;
which were not addressed.
We have the Pacific: Pride fuel cardlock at 621 Golden State,
the south side of which borders on 24th St. and is East of R St.
This is an unmanned, self serve Facility. We selected this site
and made a major investment based on historic traffic flows
which were conducive to uncongested access off of 24thSt.
Current M-1 zoning in the area fairly insured this would continue.
Table 1 of the Proposed Project Traffic Generation indicates a
significant increase in daily trips. This increase concentrated
on 24th St. between R and Golden State could have an unfairly
negative effect on our business.
Current zoning in the area also precludes all but a minimal
volume of pedestrian traffic, especially children. With the
proposed multiple family residences and middle school, this will
change dramatically. Increases in vandalism, customer complaints
about interruptions or delays in service and reports of injuries
to children; appear to be a distinct possibility with this change.
These negative and costly impacts to our business, along with our
recourses; need to be addressed prior to a final determination
regarding this proposed project:.
Sincerely,
Tim 0 ' Harra
Bakersfield Museum of Art
P. O. Box 1911 Bakersfield, CA 93303-1911
1930 R Street, Bakersfield, California 93.}01
805.323.7219 · fax 805.323.7266
March 2, 1999
EXECU'11VE COMMITTEE
Ehzabeth Bla~rle
Pres~denl
Phd Zander
PresK~enl Uec ~
Tom Heath
Post President
Terry WerdeJ
DIRECTOR5
Jean Cauqhe~
Meg Clay
:J Cobv
D Shay DeWeese
RE: Zone change to CC-zone 21st Street and R-Street
Mr. Marc Guaghier
City Planning Department
1715 Chester Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Gaughier:
I wish to lend my enthusiastic support to the proposed rezoning the area at
21st Street and R Street in Bakersfield, Califomia.
As the Executive Director of the Bakersfield Museum of Art, I see the
proposed development of that area as a positive for both the Museum and the
general area. Knowing some of the particulars of the project, and the
creativity of the Kem County Superintendent of Schools Office, I can see this
as a major enhancement to Central Park and the Museum.
Sincerely,
Charles G. Meyer
Executive Director
R. D Uhnch
Assistant Vice President
J, A Anthony
Director-Contracts
D. D. Brown
Director-Real Estate
M W. Casey
General Director*Specjal Properties
J P. Gade
Director-Facility Management
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Real Estate Department
1800 Farham .Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Fax (402) 997-3601
J. L. Hawkins
Director-Operations SuppoR
M. E, Heenan
Director-Administration & Budgets
D H. Lightwine
Director-Real Estate
T. K, Love
Director-Real Estate
January, 14, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE, ORIGINAL BY MAIL
Mr. Marc Gauthier
Principal Planner, Planning Dept.
City of Bakers field
1715 Chester Drive, 2nd Floor
Bakers field CA 93301
Folder: 1610-53
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change Case #P980749
Dear Mr. Gauthier:
Union Pacific Railroad Company (Railroad Company), successor through
merger to Southern Pacific Transportation Company, owns certain property between
21 st and 24th Streets and between "R" and "T" Streets in Bakersfield that I
underststand is included in the above-referenced Zone Change Application
(Application). The property is identified as Proposed Sale Parcels "A' and "B" on the
attached print. This property is currently subject of negotiations with the Kern
County Board of Education (Board) which seeks to acquire it for redevelopment in
~c~ordon~ x~dth ,h~ :le~c ~npc'i~Pc] iLq the Annllcatln_q
Based on the ongoing and productive dialogue with the Board and the
expectation that the parties will consummate the transfer of ownership of the subject
property in the near term, the Railroad Company has no objection to the zone
change request. Should, however, the parties not reach agreement regarding transfer
of this property for whatever reason, the Railroad would want to continue using the
property for purposes consistent with current zoning. Accordingly, the Railroad
reserves the right to withdraw consent to the Application as it pertains to the
Railroad's property.
Mr. Marc Gautheir
Page '2
January, 14, 1999
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact me directly at
(402) 997-3572.
Sinc ,
,7
Manager - Real Estate Special Projects
CC: Kern County Board of Education c/o Mr. Mark J Smith, ASU & Associates
s161053g.glp
AREA = 178.200 SO,FT,
I4,09
I
AREA = 60.200 50.FT,~ I
~1.3B AC.ti
1
SOUTHERN PACIFIC
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
PARCEL
NUMBER(S)
NOTE= BEFORE YOU BEGIN ANY WORK. SEE
AGREEblENT FOR FIBER OPTIC PROVISIONS.
EXHIBIT
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
OPP. M.P. 312 - SAN JOAOUlN SUB,
TO ACCOMPANY AGREEMENT WITH
SCALE: 1' = 200'
OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE
OMAHA, NEBRASKA DATE: 10-6-98
RLH FILE: 1610-5~
LEGEND:
PROP. SALE PARCEL "B" SHO
24TH
STREET
SCAN p:/spenQ/c~/50/cov52sle.tif
F ILENAME I
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 7
8.2a)
Commission Boyle further inquired if to the extent there is a master plan with a
General Plan Amendment, then the Commission would be making a
determination as to park size and location as part of the General Plan
Amendment, to which Mr. Grady affirmed.
Commissioner Boyle stated that a large portion of the ordinance
situations where there is no master plan for the community,
built in small bits and stages by various developers, to which Mr.
~ned in
irs been
affirmed.
Commissioner Tavorn inquired if Measure G was put in for th~
Planning Department and not the public, to which Mr. Grad'
General Plan is a public policy document so the policy is f
public.
the
the
Commissioner Tavorn inquired if it was removed,
ordinance change, to which Mr. Grady stated if mea
adopted then the existing policy would stay in
it change the overall
9 in the memo is not
Commissioner Tavorn inquired if this was put
public, or for whom, to which Mr. Grady resF
acre park size as the size the community
certain parts of the general
that a survey identified the 10
Commission Tavorn suggested they c Commissioner Sprague or
remove it. It does not appear to general public what it is asking for.
Commissioner Brady stated the ,mmittee looked at 6 acre parks that had extra
amenities and they were tryin! give the developer some flexibility to put in an
extra nice park, even thou a little smaller than 10 acres, but the
community would get allow that flexibility to occur with the people that
know parks; the Park Dir We're giving flexibility and increasing the size.
It's a better system tha have now.
Motion was made Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner
Kernper to ado ~e resolution approving and adopting the notice of exemption
approving Plan Amendment P98-0838 with findings as presented in said
resolution an same to City Council by the following. Motion
carded by following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Tkac
Commissioners Boyle, Ortiz, Tavorn
General Plan Amendment P98-0749 - Kern County Superintendent of
Schools
Combined with 8.2b below.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 8
8.2b)
Zone Change P98-0749 - Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Staff report given. The motion tonight will have to note two things: 1 ) Request
from CalTrans for an additional study, and adding two conditions. The March 17,
1999 letter from CalTrans that points 2 and 3 would be added on as conditions of
approval. None of the other two points would need to be, which means that the
motion would have to add points 2 and 3 of CalTrans letter of March 17, 1999,
2) The original condition from the archeological inventory was to have a monitor
on site the entire time and four conditions have been agreed to in the March 18,
1999 letter by the California Historical Resources Information System. Note a
modification of the motion to include the subject, the condition to, Exhibit %", to
be superseded by conditions one through four of the March 18t" letter by the
California Historical Resources Information System; those two modification would
cover the issues worked out today between four and five.
Commission Dhanens inquired if the letter from California Historical Resources
Information System would have been in their packet tonight to which Mr.
Gauthier responded they are superseding condition number 2 in Exhibit A
attached to the March 18th memo. The four conditions are those that Staff has
received this afternoon, which the Commission has a copy of dated March 18t~.
Public portion of the hearing was opened for opposition.
Dennis Fox stated that he is not in opposition, but inquired of the prudence and
issues of the toxics in the ground.
Robert Gomez stated that he is not really in opposition, but requests the
Commission to look at another avenue outlined in a letter to the Commission. He
requested the Commission postpone this request to give the Native-American
communities some time with the Superintendent of Schools, and to establish
some dialogue as far as some of the concerns they may have with respect to
artifacts, retrieval and disposition of artifacts, some monitoring/consulting issues
on site, and adherence to the CEQA process.
CommissLoner Kemper advised Mr. Gomez that in Exhibit "A" it says that "A
qualified professional archeologist shall be present on site to conduct monitoring
during all ground disturbance stages of project construction. Should any cultural
resources be entered the archeologist shall assess the finds and recommend any
necessary mitigation measures." Ms. Kemper feels Mr. Gomez's issues are
covered in this Exhibit and she would be more inclined to go ahead with the
recommendation.
Mr. Gomez was concerned as to the definition of "qualified" and if other
jurisdictions in the state or CEQA has a definition of what is a qualified Native-
American monitor or archeologist.
Tim O'Hara representing Star stated they have no opposition to the growth or
aesthetic value, but have concerns about the installation put in. The school
location on the north side is not prudent. His company's insurance will increase if
DRAFT
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
Page 9
there is a school there, and it is going to cause congestion and construction
which will impede on his business. His business went in on an M-1 zoning, and
they should not be penalized. He does not think it will be good for the City, and it
is not good for them.
Tom Vailas, Assistant County Superintendent of Schools stated that it was their
desire to construct two educational facilities on the site. The first one is Move
International, a smaller facility that would house between 30 and 40 severely
disabled children, and would become an international training center. Secondly,
using the downtown school, it is their desire to partner with the Bakersfield City
School District to construct a very small junior high school. Requirements to
attend the downtown school are that the parents receive an intradistrict transfer
and that they work downtown. It is their goal to have kids picked up on R Street,
and cooperate with all the different organizations to make this as smooth a
process as possible.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he is in favor of the project and thinks the idea of
Mixed Use projects downtown are an excellent idea and he supports it.
Commissioner Boyle inquired as to the correctional facility/half-way house
around the corner from the facility. Staff responded that they did not have much
information as to how the facility runs, but knows that the facility was there for
five or six years without the surrounding businesses realizing it was there.
Adjacent property owners have stated that there hasn't been any problems.
Commissioner Boyle asked of Mr. Vailas if they would cooperate with whatever
group Mr. Gomez recommends in selecting an archeologist to which Mr. Vailas
responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gomez stated that that what they are asking
for.
Commissioner Boyle also asked if there have been any kind of problems with
unmanned gasoline facilities downtown such as Sullivan, to which staff
responded the Fire Department, or HazMat would have that information.
Chief Shapzian, Fire Marshal, responded that there have been no incidents out
of the ordinary.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he did not think they would be able to protect Mr.
O'Hara from the possibility that children might come on the premises and do
vandalism, and does not think it will be a major problem. To address Mr.
O'Hara's further concerns about street closures, Commissioner Brady further
inquired as to the closure of Golden State Highway to which staff responded that
he is unaware of any street closures as a part of this project. Staff further
responded that they believed Golden State was a State right-of-way. There is no
known proposal with regard to closing 24t" Street, but if a street is closed you
have to have a 65402 finding from this Commission. Temporary closures for
construction would have to go through the Traffic Department for any lane
closures they would have.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 10
Commissioner Boyle commented that there appears to be sufficient access from
R Street for construction equipment, and inquired if they could put a condition on
it that there won't be any lane closures, or street closures on 24th Street, without
an additional public hearing, to which staff responded that any street closure
would be no different than any other street closure and the way the City handles
those situations. Staff stated they are aware of the impact on the surrounding
businesses and would take every precaution to be as least disruptive as
possible.
Commissioner Boyle is reasonably satisfied that lane closures are very unique
and will be on a very restricted basis, and he would support the project.
[break taken]
Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Fidler if the introduction of a school facility
within a 1,000 feet of Mr. O'Hara's facility would trigger additional regulations,
requirements or mitigation measures in his hazardous material plan that will have
to be met as a result of the business that he operates, to which Mr. Fidler
responded in the negative.
Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the school is required to go through a site
plan review through the City of Bakersfield to which staff responded they go
through the State Architect's Office that reviews their plans, which would not
impact any other businesses other than the school facility.
Staff stated that there has been nothing submitted as to the exact location on the
site where the facility will be located.
Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the educational facility would be constructed
on the north part of the site, which is most closely adjacent to the facility that Mr.
O'Hara operates.
Staff stated that the design of the school facility would be outside of their
purview.
commissioner Dhanens inquired if the Office of State Architect, in review of the
plans, would impose mitigation measures on the facility as it relates to the
adjoining property, to which Mr. Vailas responded that they have to follow
stringent guidelines to build a school. Mr. Vailas stated the State School Site
Planning Division approves all school sites, and do take exception to a few
things. The Department of State Architecture approves all the structural
components of the project. There are two processes: 1 ) Site approval; 2)
Architectural and structural approval.
Commissioner Dhanens further questioned if the fact that some of the facility's
neighbors may be M-1 uses would be factored into the review process, and if
there may be some things they will impose on the County with respect to
restricting access or leaving campus, to which Mr. Vailas responded that the
State takes everything into consideration.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
DRAFT
Page 11
Commissioner Dhanens stated that he likes the idea of Mixed Use project in the
downtown area, but is concerned with some of the M-1 zoned property and feels
reasonably satisfied that Mr. O'Hara's property would not be further encumbered
by any regulations or requirements by the introduction of the school adjacent to
his property. He believes that the Office of State Architect in site selection will be
concerned about these issues, and will probably impose some type of mitigation
to restrict access or restdct some of the concerns Mr. O'Hara had in relationship
to his property and the school. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would
support the project and support the condition regarding the Native-American
issue and their participation in the selection of the archeologist retained to review
this project.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that he is in favor of the project and inquired if there
are going to be children that are young adults being bused in, or are they going
to be dropped off by their parents and if they would even be on 24th Street, to
which Mr. Vailas responded that they are trying to model this school to the
downtown school just constructed. He stated that there are no buses and no
walkers. All the parents bring their children to school because they do work
downtown, and that is the model the County is trying to do.
Commission Ortiz questioned the safety of the canal to which Mr. Vailas
responded the canal will be considered by the State Department of Planning
Division and will be one item that will be looked at before the site is fully
approved by the State.
Commissioner Ortiz stated that he is in favor of the project.
Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks this is a terrific rehabilitation of the
area. He does not see much additional liability and would be in favor of the
project.
Ms. Shaw requested that points two and three in the March 18t" memo from
Steve Walker be included in the motion, rather than the actual letter from
CalTrans,
A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to
adopt the resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration approving
the requested amendment to the land use designation from Light Industrial to
Mixed Use Commercial with revised mitigation measures shown on the attached
Exhibit "A" with the following changes: 1) Incorporate the memorandum from
Steve Walker, dated March 18th, points two and three; 2) Incorporate the March
18th letter from the California Historical Resource Information System, which
would include conditions one through four and 3) consult with the Native-
American Groups in the selection of the archeologist. Motion was carried by the
following roll call vote:
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999
Page 12
AYES:
Tkac
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kernper, Ortiz, Tavorn,
NOES: None
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt
resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration approving the
requested zone change from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to CC (Commercial
Central) with revised conditions as shown on attached Exhibit "A with the
additional provisions: 1) Incorporate Steve Walkers memorandum of March 18th,
points two and three; 2) Incorporate the March 18th letter from the California
Historical Resource Information System as conditions one through four; and 3)
the selection of the archeologist be done in conjunction with the Native-American
Association here in town. Motion was carded by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavom,
Tkac
NOES: None
8.3a) General Plan Amend ent P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooper
Staff report given.
Public portion of the hearing was ~ened.
Lorraine Unger representing the Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, and
their interest is protecting the Kern Parkway. The Kern River Parkway is
the only green belt in Bakersfield. She >mmented that the zone change and the
land use element to office commercial is appropriate.
Brad Cooper, part-owner and General ier of Cooper's Garden Center,
stated that they have been in business and they plan to continue to
do business for another 35 years at this However, they find it difficult to
compete with Home Depot, etc. Their business the only agriculture property in
the city. They have applied for this zone chan sst to have the potential use of
doing something else.
Mike Neal, Vice-President for Business with California
State University, Bakersfield, stated that they are not ~pposition to the zone
change, but they do want to make sure that the , -- changes be reviewed
and approved by the University, including architectural c~'~al~ges, and that is part
of the restriction within the radius of the University that is built into the properties.
Public portion of the meeting closed.
LI LI
23RD STREET
LI LI
22ND STREET
LI
LI
MUC
MUC
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P98-0749
/," eo~°
' 24.TH STREET
SI
21ST STREET
CENTRAL
PARK
OS-P
/
OS-P
/
/
/
LI
U
109802