Loading...
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