HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 081-03RESOLUTION NO. 0 8 ! ' 0 3
a RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPA 03-0012 OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN,
LOCATED ADJACENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BERKSHIRE
ROAD, BETWEEN SOUTH H STREET AND MONITOR STREET.
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 17, 2003, and THURSDAY, March 20, 2003, on GPA 03-0012 of the proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, notice of
the time and place of hearing having been given twenty (20) calendar days before said hearing
by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, GPA 03-0012, an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan is as follows:
David Dmohowski with ProjectDesign Consultants has proposed to amend the
Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan by changing the
land use map designation from SR (Suburban Residential) to LR (Low Density
Residential) on 19.57 acres located adjacent on the northside of Berkshire Road,
between South H Street and Monitor Street. The project site is currently zoned
for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described proposal, an Initial Study was conducted and it was
determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment,
and, therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared and posted on February 28, 2003, in
accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 50-03 on March 20, 2003, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of Case No. GPA 03-0012, as shown in Exhibit "1", and this Council
has fully considered the finding made by the Planning Commission as set forth,in that
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative
Declarations, as set forth in CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation
Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, the Planning Commission, and this Council;
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, May 14, 2003, on the above described Case No. GPA 03-0012 of the proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, notice of
time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the
hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been provided.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met.
3. The proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan.
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 711.4 of the State of California
Department of Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of adverse
effect is rebutted by the above-reference absence of evidence in the record and
the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Negative Declaration for GPA 03-0012 is hereby adopted.
The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning
Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
The City Council hereby approves and adopts Case No. GPA 03-0012 of the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "1",
and subject to Conditions of Approval as provided in Exhibit "2", attached hereto
and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property located adjacent on the
north side of Berkshire Road, between South H Street and Monitor Street.
That Case No. GPA 03-0012, approved herein, be combined with other
approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single General Plan
Amendment.
The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby
directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto and a
Certificate of Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 711.4 (c)(2)(B) of the State of
California Department of Fish and Game Code.
2
This Resolution shall not become effective until May 28, 2003, at such time as
other General Plan Amendments are reviewed by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield.
......... 000 ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on May 14, 2003, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, ,~
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ~
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ~
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ?)/3,,L",) ~::~ ~,G- ~ 0
CiTY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as~/form
BART J. THIL, TGrEN
City Attornpy~ //.'~'
3
EXHIBIT 1
SOUTH H STREET
UNION AVENUE
Z
ITl
I"-
EXHIBIT 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 03-0012
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The developer shall provide dedication of Berkshire Road to Collector standards
The developer shall form, with all costs paid, a landscape maintenance district.
S:\GPA 1st 2003~03-0012\EXHIBIT 2.DOC
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakemfield, development services department has completed an Initial Study of the possible environmental
effects of the following described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. This determination has
been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT TITLE: General Plan Amendment No. 03-0012.
APPLICANT: David Dmohowski, ProjectDesign Consultants, 4560 California Avenue, Suite 415, Bakersfield, CA 93309
LOCATION: The project site is located adjacent on the northside of Berkshire Road, between South H Street and Monitor
Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
General Plan Amendment No. 03-0012. David Dmohowski with ProjectDesign Consultants has proposed to amend
the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan by changing the land use map designation from
SR (Suburban Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 19.57 acres located adjacent on the northside of
Berkshire Road, between South H Street and Monitor Street. The project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family
Dwelling) development.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site is currently vacant. The property to the north, east, and south contains single family residences. The
Arvin-Edison Canal is located adjacent along the north side of the project site. The property to the west contains
vacant land and further west a packing plant.
FINDING:
The Development Services Department of the City of Bakersfield has determined that the proposal under General Plan
Amendment No. 03-0012 would net have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration is
proposed for the project. This finding is supported by the attached initial Study.
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist Form
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
o
o
Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. 03-0012
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield, 1715 Chester Avenue,
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Contact Person and Phone Number: Wayne Clausen, Associate Planner (661) 326-
3777
Project Location: The project site is located adjacent on the northside of Berkshire
Road, between South H Street and Monitor Street.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: David Dmohowski, ProjectDesign
Consultants, 4560 California Avenue, Suite 415, Bakersfield, CA 93309
General Plan Designation: SR 7. Existing Zoning: R-1
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.):
General Plan Amendment No. 03-0012. David Dmohowski with PrejectDesign
Consultants has proposed to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan by changing the land use map designation from SR
(Suburban Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 19.57 acres located
adjacent on the northside of Berkshire Road, between South H Street and Monitor
Street. The project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
development.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The project site is currently vacant. The property to the north, east, and south contains
single family residences. The Arvin-Edison Canal is located adjacent along the north
side of the project site. The property to the west contains vacant land and further west a
packing plant.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval
or participation agreement): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages:
Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources []
Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources []
Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology / Water Quality []
Mineral Resources [] Noise []
Public Services [] Recreation []
Utilities / Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology / Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffic
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signatu
Wayne Clausen, Associate Planner
Printed name
02/27/2003
Date
2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is the required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each quest[on. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project will
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a ). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as welt as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate
whether the impact is potentialty significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"
is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from Section XVll, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a
reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally
address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
3
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS: -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? []
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but []
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or []
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new soume of substantial light or glare which []
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
!1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: -- in determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
IlL AIR QUALITY: -- Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or []
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian []
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Depadment of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally []
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native []
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances []
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat []
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -- Would the project:
a Cause a substantial adverse change in the []
significance of a historical resoume as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the []
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological []
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred []
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
incorporation Impact
No
Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial []
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on []
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? []
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? []
iv) Landslides? []
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?[]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, []
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- []
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or properly?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use []
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the []
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the []
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or []
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of []
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
Impact
6
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airpod or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, []
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with []
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, []
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge []
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere []
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the []
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the []
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed []
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? []
g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as []
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures []
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Lass Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
No
Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? []
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or []
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan []
or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral []
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a Iocally-impodant []
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Xl. NOISE: -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in []
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive []
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise []
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in []
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan []
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
Impact
8
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING: -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, []
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, []
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating []
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
XlV, RECREATION: --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing []
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or []
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
Impact
9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: -- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in []
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of []
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including []
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature []
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? []
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? []
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs []
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the []
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or []
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm []
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the []
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment []
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted []
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
Impact
10
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
~mpact
No
Impact
XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the []
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually []
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which []
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Revised: July 23, 2002
11
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 1
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist Response Sheet
AESTHETICS
II
III
GPA No. 03-0012
The project site is not designated under the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan as visually important or "scenic". The area does not contain any public
scenic vistas.
The project site does not contain any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings within a state scenic highway. The project site is not adjacent to a
designated "scenic" state highway. No significant impacts are noted.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential
land use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The
project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The
R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the
project is to provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing
R-1 zone regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use
designation and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The
project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings.
d. The project does not involve any new substantial source of light or glare.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The project site does not contain agricultural land. Therefore, no agricultural
land would be converted by the proposal.
The project site does not contain any agricultural zoning. The project site does
not contain a Williamson Act contract.
c. The project site does not contain agricultural land.
AIR QUALITY
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential
land use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The
project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The
R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the
project is to provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing
R-1 zone regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use
designation and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The
number of additional residential traffic trips generated by the proposal is
insignificant regarding potential impacts to air quality (see XV.a.). Therefore, the
initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 2
proposal would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air
quality plan,
b. The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential
land use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The
project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The
R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the
project is to provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing
R-1 zone regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use
designation and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The
number of additional residential traffic trips generated by the proposal is
insignificant regarding potential impacts to air quality (see XV.a.). Therefore, the
proposal would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing air
quality violation.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential
land use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The
project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The
R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the
project is to provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing
R-1 zone regarding residential density, The Low Density Residential land use
designation and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The
number of additional residential traffic trips generated by the proposal is
insignificant regarding potential impacts to air quality (see XV.a.). Therefore, the
proposal would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant. See answers III. a. and III. b. above.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential
land use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The
project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The
R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the
project is to provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing
R-1 zone regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use
designation and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The
number of additional residential traffic trips generated by the proposal is
insignificant regarding potential impacts to air quality (see XV.a.). Therefore, it
would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
See answers III. a. and III. b. above.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential
land use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The
project site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The
R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the
project is to provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing
R-1 zone regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use
designation and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The
number of additional residential traffic trips generated by the proposal is
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 3
insignificant regarding potential impacts to air quality (see XV.a.). Therefore, it
would would not create any objectionable odors. See answers III. a. and III. b.
above. The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the environment.
IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits
issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the
permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay
habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to
grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is
less than significant. Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect
on the environment.
This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat
area but does fall within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game
and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service mandates certain requirements
that by ordinance all development projects must comply. Compliance with the
plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant.
There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the subject site. The proposal would
not have a significant impact on any wetlands.
The project site is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife
corridor in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or in an area
which has been identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Services as a
corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no evidence in the record
that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No significant
impacts are noted.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has been adopted as
policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts
within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The proposal would not
conflict with either the existing local biological policy or ordinance. No significant
impacts are noted.
There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to the project site which
relate to biological resources, see answer to IV.e. above.
V CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no resources listed in or determined to be eligible by the State
Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section
4850 et. seq.) on or near the subject site. There are no resources on or near the
subject site that are listed in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resource Code. There are no significant
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 4
historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public
Resources Code. See discussion in V.b. below.
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State
University, Bakersfield, reported that there are no recorded cultural resources
on the project site. The Information Center also reported that there are four
recorded historic era isolate artifacts within a half-mile radius of the project site
and recommended that a qualified professional archaeologist conduct a field
survey prior to ground disturbance activities. The project does not involve any
ground disturbance activities. The project is only proposing to change the land
use designation from Suburban Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential
(LR). The Suburban Residential land use designation allows four (4) or less
dwelling units per net acre. The project site is currently zoned for R-l(One
Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone allows 7.26 or less dwelling
units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to provide a land use
designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone regarding residential
density. The Low Density Residential land use designation and the R-1 zone are
consistent regarding residential density.
The project is not located in the Shark Tooth Mountain bone bed which is the only
unique paleontological resource identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. In
addition, topography of the area is relatively flat. No significant impacts are
noted.
The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, if
human remains were discovered during grading or construction activities, further
work would be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public
Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native
American remains.
VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. There are no
issues regarding the proposal and geological and soil resources.
a.ii. See answer to VI. a.i.
a.iii. See answer to VI. a.i.
a.iv. See answer to VI. a.i.
b. See answer to VI. a.i.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 5
c. See answer to VI. a.i.
d. See answer to VI. a.i.
e. See answer to VI. a.i.
VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. There are no
issues regarding the proposal and hazards and hazardous materials.
b. See answer to VII. a.
c. See answer to VII. a.
d. See answer to VII. a.
e. See answer to VII. a.
f. See answer to VII. a.
g. See answer to VII, a.
h. See answer to VII. a.
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. There are no
issues regarding the proposal and hydrology and water resources.
b. See answer to VIII. a,
c. See answer to VIII. a.
d. See answer to VIII. a.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 6
e. See answer to VIII. a.
f. See answer to VIII. a.
g. See answer to VIII. a.
h. See answer to VIII. a.
i. See answer to VIII. a.
j. See answer to VIII. a.
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. Therefore, the
proposal would not physically divide the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. Therefore, the
proposal would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan or City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance.
c. See answer to IV.a., IV.e., & IV.f.
X MINERAL RESOURCES
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. Therefore, the
proposal would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource.
b. See answer to X.a.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 7
Xl NOISE
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. There are no
issues regarding the proposal and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels.
b. See answer to Xl.a.
c. See answer to Xl.a.
d. See answer to Xl.a.
This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of
the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which covers
all of Kern County. No impact is identified.
f. The project area is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of a private airstrip.
Xll POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The proposal to
change the land use designation from SR to LR on 19.57 acres would not induce
substantial population growth in any area of the City of Bakersfield or the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Area.
The project site is currently vacant. The proposal would not displace any existing
housing.
The project would not result in the displacement of any persons. See answers to
Xll a. and XII b. above.
Xlll PUBLIC SERVICES
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 8
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. Therefore, the
proposal to change the land use designation from SR to LR on 19.57 acres would
not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, and
parks.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The proposal to
change the land use designation from SR to LR on 19.57 acres would not impact
any police or fire protection services for the area.
Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through
a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The proposal
would not necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain
current levels of service for the area. No aspect of the proposal would prevent
the City of Bakersfield Fire Department or other emergency management
agencies from responding to a fire within the project area.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The proposal to
change the land use designation from SR to LR on 19.57 acres would not change
the number of dwelling units already permitted under the existing R-1 zone. The
project would not result in a substantial increase of population for the area and
would not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities or create a substantial need for new parks or recreational facilities.
XIV RECREATION
a. See answer to XIII a.
b. See answer to Xlll a.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 9
XV TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The Suburban Residential land
use designation allows four (4) or less dwelling units per net acre. The project
site is currently zoned for R-1 (One Family Dwelling) development. The R-1 zone
allows 7.26 or less dwelling units per net acre. The purpose of the project is to
provide a land use designation that is consistent with the existing R-1 zone
regarding residential density. The Low Density Residential land use designation
and the R-1 zone are consistent regarding residential density. The traffic analysis
prepared for the project by Pinnacle Engineering (see Appendix A) reported that
the existing SR land use designation would generate a total of 574 trips for every
24 hour period and a total of 45 P.M. Peak Hour trips. The same analysis
reported that the proposed LR land use designation would generate a total of
1,042 trips for every 24 hour period and a total of 82 P.M. Peak Hour trips. An
increase of only 468 Twenty-four Hour trips and an increase of only 37 P.M. Peak
Hour trips would not significantly impact Berkshire Road, which is designated as a
Collector, or the surrounding circulation system. Therefore, the proposal would
not have a significant impact on the environment regarding transportation and
traffic.
b. See answer to XV.a.
c. There are no air traffic pattern issues associated with the proposal.
There are no hazards due to design feature or incompatible use issues
associated with the proposal.
The proposal to change the land use designation from Suburban Residential (SR)
to Low Density Residential (LR) would not impact any emergency management
agency's ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. No
significant impact noted.
f. There are no inadequate parking capacity issues associated with the proposal.
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). The project is not inconsistent
with any policies or programs supporting alternative transportation.
XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). There are no utility and service
system issues associated with the proposal.
b. See answer to XVl.a.
c. See answer to XVl.a.
d. See answer to XVl.a.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA 03-0012
Page 10
e. See answer to XVI.a.
f. See answer to XVI.a.
g. See answer to XVI.a.
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project is only proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban
Residential (SR) to Low Density Residential (LR). For the reasons stated above
in IV. a., the proposal would not degrade, reduce, or threaten to eliminate any
sensitive species and their habitat within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area.
As described in the responses above, the proposal has no impacts that would be
defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only
proposing to change the land use designation from Suburban Residential (SR) to
Low Density Residential (LR).
c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
CONSULTING AGENCY LIST
(GPA 03-0012)
CITY CONTACTS COUNTY REGIONAL
X~ PARKS & REC - 3( PLAN. & DEV. ~ KERN COG
Stan Ford __ PW __ LAFCO
__ BUILDING - D. Fidler __ HEALTH __ MOS. ABATE DIST.
__ E.D. - __ AIR POL. CONTROL __ N. BKS. PARK/REC.
__ C.D. - G. Gonzales __ FIRE __ BEAR M. PARK DIS.
__ REDEV. - D. Barnes __ LAW LIBRARY __ GRTER BAK GRADE
~X FIRE - R. Fraze __ BEALE LIBRARY SEP. DIST.
__ POLICE - E. Matlock __ HSG. AUTHORITY ~X ARCHAEOLOGY INV.
~X PW - M. Shaw __ COMMUNITY DEV (CSUB)
~X TRAFFIC - S. Walker __ AIRPORTS X GET
__ GEN. SERVICES - __ PARKS/REC. __ HIST. PRESV. COM.
__ STREETS - __ SHERIFF X KERN DELTA WATER DIST.
__ WW - J. Turner __ SUPERVISOR X~ KERN CO. WATER AGENCY
(8101 Ashe Rd.) X~ ARVIN-EDISON WATER
~X WATER RESOURCES - STORAGE DISTRICT
P. Hauptman __ OTHER __ N. OF R. SANITATION
~X SOLID WASTE - K. Barnes __ KERN RIV. LEVEE DIST
__ OTHER 3( LEON H. OLIVER
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
X~ SCHOOL DIST. FACILITY
(S. Hartsel)
X~ KERN. SUP. SCHOOLS
X~ BAKERSFIELD CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
__ KERN COM CLGE D1ST
__ BKSFD. COLLEGE
__ CSUB
__ OTHER
DEVELOPMENTAL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL/FEDERAL
__ SC GAS __ STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL
__ SC Edison Electric (15 copies) __ NATURE CON
Tower Lines __ HIGHWAY PATROL __ SIERRA CLUB
__ SC Edison __ PUC __ KERN PARKWAY COMM.
X PG&E (Bak) __ DEPT. TRANS/AERO __ AUDUBON SOCIETY
__ PGE Gas Trans Lines __ FISH & GAME __ OTHER
__ CAL WATER __ WATER RESOURCES X~_ SMART GROWTH
__ PACIFIC BELL __ DEPT CONS. COALITION OF KERN
__ COX CABLE __ DIV. MINES/GEOLOGY COUNTY
__ WARNER CABLE __ DIV. OIL & GAS __ NATIVE AMERICAN
__ BRD OF REALTORS __ HSG & COMM DEV. HERITAGE PRESERVATION
__ AIA __ RWQCB (Reg. Wtr. Qual)
__ BLDERS EXCHG __ CALTRANS
__ BIA __ BD. OF EQUALIZATION
__ BLDG TRADES CNCL __ OTHER FEDERAL
__ BOARD OF TRADE __ POST OFFICE
__ EC DEV. COMM. __ BUREAU OF LAND MGT.
__ DWNTWN BUS ASSOC __ SOIL CONSERVATION
__ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE __ FISH & WILDLIFE
__ BURLINGTON NORTHERN __ OTHER
SANTA FE RR
__ UNION PACIFIC RR
__ OTHER
S:\GPA 1st 2003~03-00t2~Agency List. DOC