HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 119-99RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN TO DELETE
COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL DESIGNATIONS FOR
PACHECO ROAD BETWEEN COSFORD ROAD AND BUENA
VISTA ROAD (CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT CASE
NO. P99-0028)
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, JUNE 14 and THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1999 on a proposed amendment to the
Circulation 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 Circulation Element of
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Genera~ Plan is as follows:
General Plan Amendment P99-0028:
City of Bakersfield proposes to amend the Circulation Element of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan by deleting the collector
designation along Pacheco Road between Cosford Road and Old
River Road, and deleting the aderial designation along Pacheco
Road between Old River Road and Buena Vista Road; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 107-99 on June 17, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and denial of this General
Plan Amendment and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning
Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, since the Planning Commission conducted its public hearing, new
information regarding the lack of need for arterial and collector designations for Pacheco Road
has become available; 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, AUGUST 11, 1999, on the above described amendment to the Circulation
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
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 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, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. All required notices have been given.
been followed.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have
3. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
4. The amendment as requested will be consistent with the logical and
consistent development of adjacent areas.
5. Kern COG traffic model shows that the subject sections of Pacheco Road
would carry only local street levels of traffic.
6. The requested amendment will provide an adequate level of circulation
access to support the future surrounding development.
7. The amendment as proposed will be consistent with the ongoing
implementation of the Circulation Element policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan as development occurs in the vicinity.
8. Based on the Initial Study and comments received, staff has
determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on February 9, 1999, and April 30, 1999, in
accordance with CEQA.
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.
adopted.
2. The Negative Declaration for GPA P99-0028 is hereby approved and
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 and accepted.
4. The City Council hereby APPROVES General Plan Amendment Case No.
P99-0028, a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A."
......... o0o ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, [:)EMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER N'
COUNCILMEMBER
2
R erk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AUG 11 t~)9
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
//"/'/C ' '/ /
By: L, ...... :~/.T,~/.:).~ ......
CARL HERNANDEZ
Assistant City Attorney
MJM:pah
July 27, 1999
s:gpa-june\OO28-rgpa-cc
GENERAL PI_AN AMENDMENT..1=99-0028
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 107-99
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND DENIAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN TO DELETE
COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL DESIGNATIONS FOR
PACHECO ROAD BETWEEN GOSFORD ROAD AND
BUENA VISTA ROAD, AND TRANSMITTING REPORT TO
CITY COUNCIL (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P99-0028)
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, JUNE 14, 1999, and THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1999, on the
proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan, No. P99-0028, 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 Circulation Elements of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
General Plan Amendment P99-0028:
City of Bakersfield proposes to amend the Circulation Element
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan by deleting the collector
designation along Pacheco Road between Gosford Road and Old
River Road, and deleting the arterial designation along Pacheco
Road between Old River Road and Buena Vista Road.
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 was initially prepared and posted
on February 9, 1999, and revised and posted on April 30, 1999; 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 the city staff and the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found as follows:
1. All required notices have been given.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have been followed.
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
4. The amendment as requested will not be consistent with the logical
and consistent development of adjacent areas.
5. The requested amendment will not provide an adequate level of
circulation access to support the future surrounding development.
6. The amendment as proposed will not be consistent with the
ongoing implementation of the Circulation Element policies of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as development occurs in the vicinity.
7. Based on the Initial Study and comments received, staff has
determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment. A Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on February 9, 1999,
and April 30, 1999, in accordance with CEQA.
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 P99-0028 is hereby approved.
3. As to the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element,
consisting of changes as shown on attached Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission
hereby recommends DENIAL of such amendment to City Council.
On a motion by Commissioner Dhanens and seconded by Commissioner
Boyle, the Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the
City Council by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, McGinnis
Commissioners Brady, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac
None
I HEREBY CERTIFY' that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting
thereof held on the 17th day of June, 1999.
DATED: June 17, 1999
MJM:PAh
July 13, 1999
P:\RES\0028. PC. RES.wpd
~KA~ Chairman
Planning Commission
Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 15
AYES: Commissioners Boyle, ~~=i-.l~Jl~, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: ~
~ Commissioner Slurague
5.5) Gener'l Plan Amendment Pgg-009R - City of R-kerlfield (Ward 4)
Staff report recommending approval was given. Stanley Grady pointed out to the
Commissioners that they were given a memo with attached correspondence that
was received after the Planning Commission packets were delivered and a
memo responding to a Commissioner question from the pre-mesting regarding a
letter submitted by Ted James from Kem County Planning asking if we were
precluded from deleting :the arterial in our jurisdiction even though it is
necessary by the County. Mr. Gracly said that McAIlister Ranch was adopted by
the County on November 15, 1993, and the adopted Circulation plan does not
show the further extension of Pacheco Road as an arterial or any other
circulation map designation. Instead, two east/west arterials are shown - one-
quarter mile and one-haft mile south of Pacheco both intersecting with the east
projed boundary. There were maps attached to the memo showing the
intervening streets. It appeared that should Allen Road be improved as an
arterial all the way north past White Lane, Ming Avenue and on through
Stockdale Highway, an alternate access to similar capacity through artedal
routes could be provided. The specific plan circulation map also shows the
future alignment. of the West BIIWay one-halt mile west:. of the boundary of the
co,~ L~sn the ~ R~ Ci~ Plan and*t~'~e deleting. of
Pacheco Road.
Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor
of the project.
Commissioner Sprague stated that his concam is vacating existing fight-of-way
and bottle necking traffic for whoever owns the property west of the railroad all..
the way te Buena Vim Road. He feels that as that property is being developed
in the future it will cause a major traffic problem.
Commissioner Brady feels very strongly ~that PaCheco Roa~jrt its present
~ doe~not. needi!ia, beacolml~.b~e, cobctm' should be located mid-
way between Hams Road and the railroad line. Reducing Pacheco to a two lane
road that close to the railroad crossing is not a good idea. Commissioner Bredy
feels the road should be maligned at lea 600 feet away from the railroad
crossing. It is too far between collectors.
Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if Castle & Cooke's application
designated Pacheco Road as a modified collector or local collector for the one-
half mile bordering their project? Ms. Shaw stated "yes." Commissioner
Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw what the right-of-way is for that particular street. Ms.~
Shaw stsatad that a modified collector has a 60 foot right-of-way that is able ,
accommodate four lanes of traffic but no parking. Commission Dhanens
Minutes, PC, ThUrsdays June 17, 1999 Page 16
Ms. Shaw if a traffic study was done for this area and she said "no" that it was felt
by the Traffic Engineer one wasn't needed. Commissioner Dhanens stated that
he was in agreement with staff and would support the amendment.
Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady when McAIlister Ranch will start
construction? Mr. Grady stated that he did not know. Commissioner Boyle
asked Mr. Grady if traffic studies would have to be done out there once
construction was started or if they were done during the adoption of the specific
plan. Mr. Gredy said there were traffic studies done as part of the Environmental
Impact Report for the specific plan for McAIlister Ranch. Mr. Grady said that he
did not know the county's rules for site specific developments. Whether or not
they have the same rules as the city. As certain thresholds are reached, a
sup; te,~, x~l ~ analysis would have to be conducted. Commissioner Boyle
stated that he saw no need to make Pacheco Road anything more than a local
street. Commissioner Boyle sees no reason to create an arterial that goes no
where.
Commissioner Brady stated that it was not about McAI!ister Ranch. It is about all
the residents that are going to live between south of the Southem Pacific
Railroad line and north of Hams Road. He stated that that is a lot of houses and
the people living there have to have a way to get somewhere. He feels they
would do it on the easiest east/west comdor that they can find. If its a two lane
next to a railroad track, they will do it. Commissioner Bredy feels that Pacheco
would not be a road you would went them!on. You would want them on a bigger
problem. Co~n, nissic.~er Bredy stNed'that Pacheco needs to be moved. It
needs to be redrawn while there are no houses there before the subdivision
maps are submitted. He feels like there will be a problem and turning Pacheco
into a local street will make it worse. This would be turning Pacheco into a two
lane 55 mile per hour race track.
Commissione Spregue ~ that he would' like to see Pad ,aco Road changed
from what is proposed before them tonight.
Commissioner Dhanens presented a drawing on the overhead showing the map
of the sitd and stating that because of the railroad Pacheco will only be receiving
traffic from one direction and only deeling with half the number of trips.
Commissioner Bredy disagreed saying that assumes that people will be only
gotngsouthasoptxc, Jtoody.nOrth. The center of town and most of the
working locations is to the north and to the east. People are not going to go
south to go north. Commissioner Bredy said that he sees a major traffic problem
by allowing Pacheco to go down to a two lane road. He feels that it should be
moved while they have the opportunity.
Commissioner Dhanens said that recognizing that shopping and work related
activities are to the north of this development, that if someone lived near Hams
Road that they would not filter through the residential area to get to a collector.
He asked Ms. Shaw if staff considered having it a modified collector with a 60-
foot right-of-way, four travel lanes and no parking? Iris. Shaw said that in her:~~'
opinion there would still be some problem with a modified collector inte g
with an arterial that close to the railroad. That couldbe handled, hoWever, b~! ,
Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 17
moving it an appropnate distance frem the railroad. Commissioner Dhanens
asked if staff had given any thought to Commissioner Brady's idea of making the
specific plan line somewhat to the south. She responded with a "no" that had not
been discussed.
There being no further comments or questions, Commissioner Dhanens made a
motion, seconded by Boyle, to adopt a resolution aiDproving and adopting a
mitigated negative declaration and appmving the requested general plan
amendment with findings as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit
"D") and recommend the same to City Council. Motion denied by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, McGinnis
NOES:
Commissioners Brady, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac
ABSENT: None
6. GFNFRAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (Ward 7~
See Consent Agenda.
7. COMMUNICATIONS
None
COMMISSION COMMFNTS
Commissioner Kernper asked Mr. y if it were-possible to put the property
owner's name on the staff in the future. Commissioner Spregue also
· ' on the staff report. Mr.
9. R~C~ON
DISCUSSION A ' RFt=ARnlNG POSSlRI F CANCFI I ~,TION OF
THF NFXT P -MFFTING.
It was "'ded that there would be a pre-meeting on June 28, 1999.
10.
There being no further action to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjoumed at 9:55 p.m.
July 1. 1999
Pam Townsend, Recording Secretan/
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) _'-~26-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266
BAKERSFIE
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
April 30, 1999
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 327-0646
TO:
SUBJECT:
Responsible or Other Interested Agency
Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield will
be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Negative Declaration for the project identified in the
attached Initial Study. We would appreciate the views of your agency as to the scope, content
and adequacy of the environmental information which is applicable to your agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use this
Negative Declaration when considering any permits or other approvals needed for this project.
In order to review and consider your comments on this project, please send your
response no later than 20 days after receipt of this notice to Mike McCabe, the project planner
assigned to this case, at the address indicated above. In your response, please include the
name of the contact person in your agency.
Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the California Government Code, notice is
hereby given that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of
the City of Bakersfield. Said hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the
matter may be heard on MONDAY, June 14, 1999, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The
Monday portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or deny
this project will be taken on Monday. The hearing will be continued to take testimony from
others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, June 17,
1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California,
93301.
NOTE: This proposed Negative Declaration was previously circulated prior to the
Planning Commission meetings of March 15 and 18, 1999, and has been revised to
accommodate an expanded project proposal.
For more information, please call the department at (805) 326-3733.
MJM:pjt
s:gpa-june\0028-al
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, P99-0028
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
REVISED
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99..0028
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by
changing a portion of Pacheco Road from a collector (90 foot wide right-of-way) between
Gosford Road and Old River Road, and from an Arterial (110 foot wide right-of-way) between
Old River Road and Buena Vista Road to a local street along a similar alignment for the two
mile long segment.
PROJECT LOCATION:
Generally located long the south of the Asphalto Branch Railroad between Gosford Road on the
east and Buena Vista Road on the west.
PROJECT SIZE:
The affected roadway segment is two miles long. The local street will follow the same
approximate alignment depending on the configuration of future adjacent development.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site is relatively flat and adjoining areas to the south have been cultivated in carrots
or other field crops, as is the adjacent area south of Pacheco Road and west of Gosford Road.
There is little or no existing native vegetation or habitat area. The existing alignment of
Pacheco Road is adjacent to the Asphalto Branch Railroad on the north side. The area north of
the railroad is developed with the single family residential Campus Park development. The
Spring Creek residential development is southeast of the easterly end at Gosford Road, and the
Tevis Ranch residential development and recently constructed Earl Warren middle school are
north of the existing arterial segment of Pacheco Road.
Pacheco Road west of Gosford Road is paved with two lanes. There are no curbs or other
permanent drainage improvements. Progress Road, also two lanes, intersects with Pacheco
Road one-half mile west of Gosford Road. Pacheco Road parallels the north south railroad
branch that joins the Asphalto branch where it crosses Pacheco Road.
MJM:
s:gpa-june\0028
Project No.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
General Plan
P99-0028
(Circulation
Amendment
Element)
EFFECT:
EARTH Scii~
Geolocjic Hazarcts
Er¢~oruSedimenmm~
ToDograptW
WATER
Q~/itylQuanmy
- Grourmwmmt
RcxxiinqlOrmnaqe
AIR
Ai~ Quality
ClirnalelAir Movement
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Animai~
TRANSIK)RTATION
Tr,.ffliciCircutalion
Perking
Tr~dlic Hazaret8
Air/WatmrlRail Sysmm~
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Ar{:ttaeoiogica~
H..rlodcal
S - Significant
': Si!:..!t p :t IY~ N I ORD" t' ':'::
':~iii::~: ::: LAND USE
x x Compam3ility
x x Gerte~el PlantZonir~
x Grow~ Inducement
x Prime AcJ LancI
......... . PUBLIC SERVICES
x Fire
x Schools
x
X X Pm'kllRecre~ion
&
!:::: Solid Wast~
x x Facfiity Mmntenance
X X
UTILITIES .....
Wa~r
X
...i!::-:! -: ::' ::':: :~i~! ......
X
x Storm Orairmge
x x Nslulll Gas
x x Commurucalion
........ · ~:iiii : POPULATION
x x HOUSING
x x HEALTH HAZARDS
x x NOISE
x x AESTHETICS
· LIGHT AND GLARE
x x NATURAL RESOURCES
x x ENERGY USAGE
(NOTE: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ABOVE IMPACTS IS KITACHED.)
IMPACT.':T"'
:S::t: P:"':::t '
·
X
X
:X
~:!:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P - Potarmatly Significant
! = InsKJndicanVNo Effect Y = Yes N - No ORD = Ordinance Requirmnent
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does t~e Oraloct have 1he polenljal to degrade Uqe quality of the en~qmnmen~ substamjaJly reduce the habitat of a fish
or wddlife slxcsee. cause · fish or wfidlife popu/ehon to arop Oelow self suslmning levee. l~rsamn to elimines a plant
or animal community. mcluce dqe humtar or remnct the range o~ a ram {x endangercol plant or anime species, or elimirusee
important examDies of the mqor periods of CaJifom,a hisre,/or prehiatoq?
Ooee me proiect have me Dotentie to acniove sr~ort-torm. to me aisaclvamage of long-term. erMronmenml cJoels? (A short
~rm imp=act ors me erMronment is one of which occurs in · releiveiy brief, definite DenoO ot fjme while tong-term
,~yacls will enoure welt inlo ~e futurt t
Y N
XX
XX
Doee me Droiect have ,mDaca w~ch inctividuelly limited. but cumutaltvely co~sideraDle? (A DrotectmaytmDacron fvvo or
more 8e,Datam m~ource8 wi~fw tie ~'nDec~ on each re=ource m rela~'w~f errlel. but where me effect of me mint of ~hose
irnper,= on me enwronrnem ie 8igrd~m'~j.
DOll ee proiect have t~ror., .o:V ' M which will caule substantial advome eibem on humen beings, eilher directly
IlL
P~ojeetNo. ~pA pq9-0028
(Circulation Element)
FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION
(Proj~"~u wl~es~ a Ne.nuve OeclaraUon or FIR has not been pre~ously prepaid. or wbet~ a pr~-vious donnnd~ ~ not
be utfiize~.)
ON THE BASIS OF T!~g INITIAL EVALUATION (cheek one):
It has Izen forrod that the proposed project COULD NOT have a ~j~ific~nt effect on the
environment: therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~H be prepared.
XX
It has been found that althougta the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case k.~aus~ MITXGA'fION
MEASURF~, a~ identified in the Discunion of Environmental Impacts. have ~een incorporated
into the pm~ect: therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has been found that the proposed project MAY have a s~-f, ificnnt effea on the environment,
and an EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ~ be prepared.
cC e,, Assistant Planner
~d
DATE: ~/-~ o{//~,~ ~
RR
ER
SR
GENERAL
PLAN DESZGRATZONS
~Rural Residential 2.5 gross
acres/dwelling unit}
.Estate Residential - ~ dwelling
unit/net acrel
SuburOan ResidenZial less than
or equal ~o 4 dwelling units/net
acre)
Low Density Residential - less
than or equal to 7.26 dwelling
unztslnet acre)
tLow Medium Oensi~y Residential -
greater than 4 and less t~an or
equal to 10 dwelling units/net
acre)
LI ( Light Industnall
5I kSennce Industnail
HI ( Heavy. industrial)
P ( Public Facilities ~
PS ( Public/Private School)
PT ( Public Transportation)
P. SW ( Solid Waste Facilities
HIm
HR
(High Medium Oenszty Residential
greater than 7.26 and less than
17.42 dwelling units/net acre)
(High Density Residential
greater than 17.42 and less than
or eaual to 72.6 dwei]_Lng units
/net acre)
OS (Open Spac~
OS-P (Parks)
OS-S (Slopes)
R-IA ( Re,source-Intensive Agriculture,
, ZO acres min~uat}
HC (Highway Commercial)
GC (General Commercial)
(Mljor Commercial)
OC (Office Commercial}
MUC (Mixed Use Commercial)
( Resource-Extensive Agriculture,
20 acres miramum)
( Resource-Mineral Petroleum.
5 acres mum)
Gemend Ran Struot Cq=WSi~---HE-
Fn, ways provide service to throuZh traffic ezdUsivety
w/th no access to abutting property. and no at-grade
intersections.
EN,,-b-=?- are axlefind highways with at least partial
control of _, _,-:~__ which my or my not be divided or
have grade separations at intersections and my be an
interim factty for an ultimate freeway.
,dkmmb ~e .ed primarily b~ tL-ouSh
traffic, with a minimal function to provide
an2ss to abutting property.
Co~h,tn_s function to connect local streets
with ~rter~ and to provide ac~zss to
abutting property.
Lomts are ezdusive.ly for property a--,:,:,~_-- and
through u~tc i, d~courq~L
~Dne
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING DESIGNATIONS
R-1
E
R-S
I One Family Dwelling - 6.000 sq. ft./dwelling unit>
(Estate - 10.000 sq.ft./dwelling unit)
(Residential Suburban - 24,000 sq.ft./dwetling unit)
R-S-[A (Residential Suburban. one-acre minimum lot size)
R-S-2.5A (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre miramum lot
size)
M-1
M-2
M-3
A
A~20A
P
(Light Manufacturing)
(General Manufacturing)
(Heaw,, Industrial)
( Agriculture )
(Agriculture-20 acre minimum)
Automobile Parking)
R-S-:SA Residential Suburban five-acre minimum lot size)
R-S-10A Residential Suburban ten-acre minimum lot size)
RE (Recreation)
Ch (Church)
R-2
R-3
Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/2.500
sq. ft./dwelling taut)
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1 / 1,2,'50
sq. ft./dwelling unit)
OS ( Open Space t
HOSP. ( Hospital >
D (Architectural Design) (no longer in use)
R-4
R-H
PUD
C-O
C-1
C-2
C-C
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/600
sq.ft./dwelling unit)
(Residential ttolding)
(Planned Unit Development)
(Professional and Administration Office}
(Neighborhood Commercial')
(Regional Commercial)
(Commercial Center)
AD (Architectural Design)
FP-P (Floodplain Primary.)
FP-S (Floodplain Secondary)
AA (Airport Approach)
TF (Travel Trailer Park)
MH (Mobilehome)
SC (Senior Citizen)
PCD (Planned Commercial Development)
fNzone. 1
APPENDIX I
(REVISED)
Concurrent General Plan Amendment P99-0028
Circulation Element
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
Soils - Realignment of the collector segment as proposed may result in soils of the Kimberly fine
sandy loam and Cajon sandy loam units to be 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. These soils are
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. As the proposal would essentially
displace impacts from one specific location to another in the same vicinity, there would be no
significant additional impact in terms of soils.
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 undeveloped. 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. The project would essentially displace
minor impacts from one location to another.
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. 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. Impacts will essentially be displaced from one
specific location to another.
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
interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially degrade water quail
supply, substantially
Water service would be provided for the deve opment by the City of Bakersfield Water Res
Department; however, the cumulative impact to the water table would be negligible and
insignificant
Appendix l
GPA/Circulation Element P99-0028
Page 2
Surface Water - The project will 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. As the site is not located
adjacent to or contains any rivers, streams or canals, the proposal will not result in changes in
currents or the course or direction of surface water movements.
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 approximately 8 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__r
Air Quality - There will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a
substantial deterioration of ambient air quality through development of this project. The proposal will
not violate any 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 potlutant concentrations. This proposal will be
forwarded to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District for review and comment.
Climate/Air Movement - Land uses associated with the proposed realignment of the collector
segment will not significantly alter air movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change
in climate, either locally or regionally.
Odors - Land uses associated with this collector alignment amendment do not appear to have the
potential to create objectionable odors
Biological Resources
Plants -The surrounding vicinity is currently cultivated on a seasonal basis for carrots or similar field
crops, or left fallow on a periodic basis. Uncultivated areas contain various native or introduced
vegetation consisting of forbs and ruderal species. The proposed collector route alignment will not
in itself result in the introduction of new plant species, although the planting of ornamental species
would occur in conjunction with future projected urbanized uses of the area. A barrier may be
created to the normal replenishment of existing plant species in the vicinity, although this impact
would be primarily displaced as transportation route would be realigned in accordance with the
proposal. The proposal will not entirely eliminate a plant community or substantially diminish or
reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of are not deemed significant.
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, could be
introduced as a result of future projected urban development of the vicinity, although this impact
would not be immediate. A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing animal
species, but this impact would essentially be displaced from its existing location. Although exi~,=~:~L:~i~.
species of animals on-site would be removed through construct on of the realigned roadway a~P~Well
as related urban development, the proposa wi not entirely eliminate a wildlife commu~i~.ty or ~.!
Appendix I
GPA/Circulation Element P99~0028
Page 3
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 associated with the collector route in question 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 is not expected by itself to generate increased vehicular
movement, as it is merely the realignment of an existing designated collector segment within an
undeveloped area. Any future substantial increases in traffic affecting the existing traffic volume or
capacity on this and surrounding circulation routes that could result from future development in the
vicinity will be addressed by site-specific studies at project review stage. Additional environmental
assessment as pursuant to CEQA will occur at such future development stages.
Parking - Existing parking facilities will not be directly affected by the proposed realignment of the
collector route. The demand for new parking through future urban development of adjacent areas
will be addressed through future development review and application of Ordinance standards.
Traffic Hazards - There would be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
b/cyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed collector realignment.
Air/Water/Rail Systems - The present alignment of Pacheco Road is bordered on the north side by
the tracks of the Asphalto Branch Railroad. The proposed realignment of the majority of the future
collector alignment in this section will not affect the rail line, nor any waterborne or air traffic.
Approval of this amendment may result in a lessened impact on the rail line, as a considerably
reduced portion of the collector would be immediately adjacent to the railroad.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological - It is not known if archaeological or historical resources are located on the site. This
Initial Study will be transmitted to the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) housed at California
State University Bakersfield for their review, comments and recommendations. All measures
indicated by the AIC will be completed prior to any ground disturbance.
Historical - The site is in largely agricultural use, and a portion is occupied by vacant packing shed
buildings and related structures. No historical structures or other similar resources that could be
impacted by the project have been identified. The project is not expected to eliminate impo..r~
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory or result in adverse physic +..a~.r
Appendix l
GPA/Circulation Element P99~0028
Page 4
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. The proposal will be referred
to the Economic and Community Development Department for review and comment on any possible
anticipated impact upon historical resources.
Land Use
Compatibility - The proposed circulation amendment will not change or adversely affect the existing
Service Industrial and Low Density Residential land use designations on adjacent land areas. The
existing land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site include a railroad on the north, and
the Campus Park single family residential tract development northerly of the railroad, which are
indicated in Table "1 ". No additional impact on these adjacent uses will result from approval of the
proposed collector alignment. The 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.
TABLE 1
Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties
LOCATION
NORTH
LAND USE ZONING
DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE
Low Density Residential
One Family Dwelling,
Limited Multifamily,
Agriculture
Single Family Tracts,
School, vacant area
SOUTH Service Industrial, General Manu- Agricultural field crops,
Low Density Residential facturing, One Family vacant
Dwelling, Agriculture
EAST General Commercial, Neighborhood Plant Nursery,
Service Industrial Commercial, General Industrial Park
Manufacturing
WEST General Commercial, Commercial, One Vacant, Agriculture
Low Density Residential Family Dwelling, Limited
Multifamily
General Plan/Zoning - The present land use designation on the land bordering the existing collector
and arterial routes include Service Industrial (SI), Low Density Residential (LR), High and High
Medium Density Residential (HR and HMR), with existing zoning of Agriculture (A and A-20A), One
Family Dwelling (R-l), Limited Multiple Family Dwelling (R-2), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1),
Regional Commercial (C-2), and General Manufacturing (M-2). The proposal will not result in a
substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area, as no land use amendments or
zoning changes are proposed with the project. 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 proposal, as a realignment of a an existing designated collector segment,
will not induce substantial growth.
Pdme Agricultural Land - Construction of the projected collector route will result in the removal of a
minimal amount of prime agricultural land. There could be short term, temporary impacts upon the
productivity of adjacent prime agricultural land. The surrounding vicinity, however, is projected for
urban industrial, residential and commercial land uses; therefore, there will be no substantial impact
upon agricultural uses in the long term. ~..~
Appendix I
GPNCirculation Element P99-0028
Page 5
Public Services
Police - The proposal will not affect City police protection services in the area, as no new residents
or development would be added to the City.
Fire - The proposal will not affect City fire protection or prevention services for the area, as no new
residents or structures will be included in the City.
SchoOls o The proposed project will not impact school facilities to any significant degree.
Parks / Recreation - The project proposes no increase in population for the area and would therefore
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.
Solid Waste t Disposal ~ The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or
substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The project will not breach published
national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control.
Facility Maintenance - Street or and other public facility improvements resulting from the realignment
of the collector route and eventual buildup of the surrounding 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.
Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area. 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 eventually be required to serve future development surrounding the area, but this
impact is not considered significant at this time.
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 future development in the area, but this impact is not considered significant at
the present time.
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 future development in the vicinity, but the impact is not considered significant at the
present time.
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 future development in the area, but the impact
is not considered significant at this time.
Appendix l
GPNCirculation Element P99-0028
Page 6
Population / Employment I Housing
There is no anticipated impact in terms of population growth or location, overall employment patterns
or housing needs and location resulting from approval of the proposed realignment of the collector
route. Any future impact in this respect would be limit to minor rearrangement of permitted
development within future, undefined development projects in the area.
Health Hazards I Public Safety
No significant health hazards or other 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. The project will not attract people to an
area and expose them to hazards found there, nor will the project interfere with emergency response
plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project is not on the most current hazardous wastes and
substances site list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
Noise
There could be a minor increased noise impact upon future dwellings, offices or other noise sensitive
uses constructed along the railroad right-of-way should realignment of the affected portion of the
collector away from the railroad be approved Such impacts could be partly mitigated by increased
residential setbacks as required by ordinance at the time of future subdivision/construction stages,
and additional structural measures such as block walls. Specific impacts and mitigation measures
would be addressed at future development review stages, but will probably not be significant.
Aesthetics
Future urbanization of the areas adjacent to the collector route will alter the open space qualities of
the area to a minor degree. The present circulation element amendment does not propose any
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 any direct substantial or demonstrated negative effect.
Light and Glare
Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities alongside the proposed
collector realignment and from future surrounding development and anticipated vehicle traffic.
Subsequent site plan review of future development will evaluate building location, material selection,
lighting design, parking and signage placement to buffer proposed light impacts from surrounding
developments. Such future development 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 Usa~Je
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 capac ty or sources, nor will
the project result in significant effects on peak and base period demands for electricity and oth~
forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it encourage..
Appendix I
GPNCirculation Element P99-0028
Page 7
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.
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS 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 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.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan DEII~. The Planning Center, July, 1989.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of
Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September 1989.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)( 1 )(B) and
2081 permits, 1994.
Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
MJM
s:gpa-june\0028-ai
EXHIBIT "A"
General Plan Amendment P98-0028
Recommended Mitigation Measures
If cultural resources are unearthed during construction activities, all work shall be halted
in the area of the find. A qualified archaeologist shall be called in to evaluate the
findings and make any necessary mitigation measures. 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.
s:gpa\june\OO28\ea
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Applicant: City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department
Address: 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Project Title/Location (include City and County)
General Plan Amendment Case P99-0028, located along the two mile segment of Pacheco Road between
Gosford Road on the east and Buena Vista Road on the west, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern.
Project Description:
Request to amend Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing a
portion of Pacheco Road from a collector (90' ROW) between Gosford Road and Old River Road, and from
an arterial (110' ROW) between Old River Road and Buena Vista Road, to a local street along a similar two
mile long segment.
Finding of Exemption:
Based on the absence of evidence in thf; record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California
Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting signfficant 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.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TED ,lAMES, AICP, Director
2700 "IVI" STREET, SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323
Phone: (661) 862-8600
FAX: (661) 862-8601 TrY Relay 1-S00-735-2929
E-Mall: planningl~co.kern.ca.us
Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.us/plannlng/info.htm
,~ESOURCE MA NA GEMEN T A GENC Y
DAVID PRICE ~l, RMA DIRECTOR
Community Development Program Department
Engineering & Survey Services Department
Environmental Health Services Department
Planning Department
Roads Department
May 11,1999
FILE: Gen Corres
Michael McCabe, Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield CA 93301
Re:
Comments on Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration for Amendment of
Circulation Element - Pacheco Road (General Plan Amendment Case P99-0028)
Dear Mr. McCabe:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Because project details are scant, we are
not totally convinced that marking the boxes under the "No Effect" heading on the Transportation
section of the Environmental Checklist is appropriate. Preparation of a traffic analysis would lend
credibility to that decision and would be valuable in determining the advisability of the proposal.
We note that several square miles of future development located to the south and west, including the
9,000-unit McAllister Ranch Specific Plan, may, to some extent, need to rely on the circulation
afforded by Pacheco Road. The "Transportation" section of the Initial Study notes that "Any future
substantial increases in traffic affecting the existing traffic volume or capacity on this and
surrounding routes that could result from future development in the vicinity will be addressed by
site-specific studies at project review stage." In light of that statement, it may be desirable to
postpone consideration of the proposed circulation amendment until development is proposed
nearby. That would allow evaluation of the proposed amendment and development in relation to one
another and in the larger context of the area.
If you have any questions, please call me at (661) 862-8606.
Very truly yours,
TED JAMES, AICP, Director
Kern County Planning Department
By Glenn A. Barnhill
Planning Chief
SHS
H :\STEVE\MCCABE.LTR
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner
Marian P. Shaw, Civil Engineer IV
May 17, 1999
GPA P99-0028 Delete Pacheco as collector/arterial from Gosford Road to Buena Vista
Road - City of Bakersfield
In the Circulation Elemem of the 2010 Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, Pacheco Road is designated
as a collector from Gosford Road to Old River Road. and as an arterial from Old River Road to Buena
Vista Road. Pacheco Road does not exist east of Gosford Road, (the Silvercreek development). The area
between Gosford Road and Buena Vista Road is generally zoned residential, except for an M-2 zone south
of Pacheco Road from Gosford to Progress Road, some A-20A zones at the southeast and northwest
comers of Pacheco and Old River, and some commercial zoning at the intersection of Buena Vista Road
and Pacheco Road. This area is generally undeveloped.
Gosford Road to Old River Road
Pacheco is designated as a collector between Gosford Road and Old River Road. The Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan calls for collector streets (four travel lanes in a 90 foot right-of-way) in a
grid pattern on mid-section lines. This pattern is deviated from where physical constraints are present,
where collectors are not needed, or where the existing development preclude the grid pattern of existing
street.
The purpose of a collector is, as the name suggests, to "collect' traffic from local streets and convey it to
a higher capacity road - the arterial. Collectors link residential neighborhoods (or industrial/commercial
areas) with arterial streets. They are not designed to carry through traffic over a distance of several miles,
are arterials are designed to do. In the City of Bakersfield, by virtue of our grid street system, the
collectors are generally plated one-half mile from the nearest arterial. This means that the typical collector
will carry the traffic from at least a quarter-mile strip on either side of the collector.
Pacheco Road is immediately south of the railroad, and the area to the north of the railroad between
Gosford Road and Old River Road has been completely developed without making any provision to cross
the railroad. Indeed, a railroad crossing on a local street would be inappropriate in a residential setting.
Because of this Pacheco Road cannot serve the area to the north as a collector. Harris Road, another
designated collector, is located one half mile to the south of Pacheco. Leaving Pacheco Road in its current
location would insure that Pacheco Road would be permanently underutilized. In addition, there are
physical and operational problems with having a collector/arterial intersection in such close proximity to
a railroad crossing. Immediately to the east of the area under consideration is the Silvercreek development
between Ashe Road and Gosford Road. Silvercreek was designed without a collector along the railroad.
It is nearly built out and is functioning adequately. For these reasons, staff recommends the elimination
of Pacheco Road as a collector between Gosford Road and Old River Road.
Old River Road to Buena Vista Road
Pacheco Road is designated as an arterial road between Old River Road and Buena Vista Road. Arterials
are six lane roads with a median in a 110-foot right of way. The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan calls for arterial streets to be generally spaced at one-mile intervals throughout the developed area
except where topography or other unique features warrant a different pattern. Arterials are primarily used
for through traffic and access to them is strictly limited. This is the only instance within the City limits of
an arterial adjacent to a railroad that is not within a commercial or manufacturing/industrial zone.
Within this segment of Pacheco, there will be two arterial/arterial intersections (at Old River and at Buena
Vista) and an arterial/collector intersection (at the extension of Mountain Vista at the half mile point).
There are no hard and fast rules about the optimum distance between a railroad crossing and an
arterial/arterial or arterial/collector intersection. From an operations standpoint, however, the at-grade
railroad crossing should be at least 500 feet from the intersection so as not to interfere with the turning
lanes. Ideally, of course, any intersection between an arterial and a railroad would be grade-separated.
An arterial (or collector) paralleling a railroad right-or-way would make a future grade separation
extremely difficult - the entire intersection would have to go underground.
Pacheco itself does not exist in any forat between Stine Road and Gosford Road, and so cannot carry
through traffic for any distance. Therefor, the major function of a road in this area would be to connect
the residential areas to the through arterials - Old River Road, Buena Vista Road, Panama Lane, and White
Lane. With collectors one-half mile north and south of Pacheco, a local road would function adequately
for this purpose.
For these reasons, staff recommends the elimination of Pacheco Road as an arterial between Old River
Road and Buena Vista Road.
S:',,Gpa & ZC conditionsXtx)9.-O028 Pacheco.wlxl
RMR:mps
xc. Reading File
Project File
Marjan P Shaw
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Marian P. Shaw, Civil Engineer IV
M arch 16, 1999
Item 8. 8 - GPA P99-0028
Deletion of Pacheco Road as collector between Gosford Road and Old River Road
The Public Works Department is requesting the removal of this item form this GPA cycle. Due to a mis-
communication, the item was noticed as deletion of a portion of Pacheco Road as a collector segment
between Gosford Road and Old River Road. The intent was to eliminate Pacheco Road as an arterial/
collector between Gosford Road and Buena Vista Road.
]>ublic Works has spoken to a representative of the property owners between Buena Vista Road and the
railroad, and they are tentatively in favor of this GPA action. Rather than processing this as two separate
actions, postponement of this item to the next cycle would enable staff to present it as one project, with
notifications to the full length. It would also allow staff to better address the questions raised by the
Commissioners at the Monday premeeting.
\.WINDOWS ~,TEVl px~p ACHECOP, WPD
]LMR:mps
Reading File,
Project File
Jacques R. La Roebelle
Marim~ P. Shaw
San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District
June 15, 1999
CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Michael J. McCabe, Assistant Planner
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0028 (Circulation Element)
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed your
Negative Declaration and agrees that, because this project is only for the purpose of deleting a
collector and will not include any physical construction, there will be no significant negative
impact on the environment with regard to air quality. The District, therefore, supports this
Negative Declaration.
These determinations were made from the information supplied with this project. If any
modifications to the project occur, this determination may become invalid.
The District recognizes that this comment letter is past the date set by your agency to end receipt
of comments. These comments are late due to unforeseen circumstances and if they are too late
to be included in your process, please disregard.
The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. lfyou have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (661 ) 326-6980.
Joe O'Bannon
Air Quality Planner, Southern Region
APCD Ref #: S990120
David L. {:row
I!!xecuhve Director/Air Pollution Control Officer
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 32543266
BAKERSFIELD
Development Services Department
Jack HardistV, Director
June 1,1999
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 32743646
Joe O'Bannon
Air Quality Planner, Southern Region
San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District
2700 "M" Street, Suite 275
Bakersfield, CA 93301
IRE: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment P99-0028
Dear Mr. O'Bannon:
The department acknowledges receipt of your comment letter dated March 9, 1999 in
support of the above referenced project. The requested circulation element amendment, the
deletion of a portion of Pacheco road as a collector segment, has been expanded to also include
the deletion of an artedal designation along the portion of Pacheco Road extending from Old River
Road westedy to Buena Vista Road. The revised proposal was renoticed on Apdl 30, 1999 for a
continued hearing date by the Planning Commission on June 14 and 17, 1999 in conjunction with
the second cycle of General plan amendments for the current year.
Please contact us if your agency has not yet received a copy of the revised initial study and
proposed Negative Declaration for the expanded project.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
MJM
s:l-99-0028.apd
City of Bakersfield ·
1 715 Chester Avenue ·
Bakersfield, California · 93301
San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollutk n
Control
I)istrict
March 9, 1999
Michael J. McCabe, Assistant Planner
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: General Plan Amendment Case P99-0028
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed your
Negative Declaration and agrees that, because this project is only for the purpose of deleting a
collector and will not include any physical construction, there will be no significant negative
impact on the environment with regard to air quality. The District, therefore, supports this
Negative Declaration.
These determinations were made from the information supplied with this project. If any
modifications to the project occur, this determination may become invalid.
The District recognizes that this comment letter is past the date set by your agency to end receipt
of comments These comments are late due to unforeseen circumstances and if they are too late
to be included in your process, please disregard.
The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (661) 326-6980.
Joe O'Bannon
Air Quality Planner, Southern Region
APCD Ref #: S990034
Northern Region
I)avid I,. Crony
Executit'e Director Air Polhttion (,~ntrol ¢'j~tlicer
( .entral Regi~ ,n
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOUK _S AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
4800 S'I'OCKDALE HWY, SUITE 417
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309
(661) 322-4031
FAX: (661) 861-0279
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
May 13, 1999
Mike McCabe
City Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California
9'3301
Dear Mr. McCabe
Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, P99-0028
Portion of Sec. 20-T30S/R27E MD B&M
The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) has received the above
referenced Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration
that proposes to delete a circulation element. We have no
additional comments beyond those stated in our letter dated March
3, 1999.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please feel
free to contact Min Chu, Energy and Mineral Resources Engineer, at
(661) 322-4031.
Sincerely,
Senior Oil and Gas Engineer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOUI:,, _,S AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
4800 ST() CKDALE HWY, SUITE 417
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309
(661) 322-4031
FAX: {661) 861-0279
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
March 3, 1999
Jennie Eng
City Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California
93301
Dear Ms. Eng:
Notice of Public Hearing
General Plan Amendment, P99-0028
Circulation Element
Portion of Sec.20-T30S/R27E MD B&M
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources has reviewed the above referenced General
Plan Amendment project that proposes to delte a circulation
element. The Division has no comments with respect the project's
impacts on well safety or access.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please feel
free to contact Min Chu, Energy and Mineral Resources Engineer, at
(661) 322-4031.
Sincerely,
David Mitchell
Senior Oil and gas Engineer
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 2.26-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266
BAKERSFIE
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
June 1,1999
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 327-0646
Jim Larson
Manager-Real Estate
Union Pacific Railroad Company
1800 Faroare Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
RE: General Plan Amendment P99-0028
Dear Mr. Larson:
This department has received your letters of comment on the above referenced case, a
request to delete the General Plan Circulation element designation of Pacheco Road as a
collector segment between Gosford Road and Old River Road. Upon consideration of this
proposal on March 18, 1999, the Planning Commission continued the case until June 14 and 17,
1999.
The request has been expanded to also include the deletion of the artedal mute
designation of the portion of Pacheco Road from Old River Road westerly to Buena Vista Road,
which is also parallel to the railroad right-of-way. On Apdl 30, 1999, the project was renoticed for
hearing in June 1999. Planning Department staff recommends approval of the revised request.
The department acknowledges the follow up letter dated March 5, 1999, and which you
have withdrawn your opposition to the request as originally noticed, affecting the one-mile portion
of Pacheco Road between Gosford Road and Old River Road. My understanding is that your
change in position followed a discussion and clarification of the proposal with planning staff.
Please contact our staff at (661) 326-3733 should you have any further questions or need
clarification of the revised amendment request.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
MJM
S: 1-99-0028.upr
City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
R. D. Uhnch
ASsslant Vice Presidefit
J A. Anthony
Dired3r-Cantracts
D D. Brown
Oirecl,3r*Real Estate
M. W C;asef
General Direct~'-Spe~al Propeffies
J P. Gade
Direct~)r-Facjiity Management
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Real Estate Department
1800 Farnam Street
Omaha. Nebraska 68102
Fax ~402) 997-3601
J.L. HawIUn$
Director-Opmmlinl ~-4~';
MEIHeenln
Directot-Admlnillrltlgn l BIx~ltl
D H. Lightwine
Director-Re/Eltlll
T. K. Love
Director-Real EIIm~
March 5, 1999
Folder No,: 865-94
STANLEY C GRADY
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1715 CHESTER AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301
U.S. Certified Mail #Z 507 195 478
Retum Receipt Requested
Mr. Grady:
Please refer to my letter dated March 2, 1999, in which I opposed the General Plan Amendment
P99-0028, in connection with the proposed deletion of Pacheco Road between Old River and
Gosford Roads.
I have received more information regarding the future development of this area, and I now am
not in opposition to this plan.
If you have any questions for me or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call
me at (402) 997-3561.
Respectfully,
R D. Librich
As$1,,itant Vice PresKlent
J. A. Anthony
Director-Contracts
D D. ;3town
Director-Real Estate
M W. Casey
General Director-SCecal Properlies
J P. Gade
Dire(tot-Facility Management
STANLEY C GRADY
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
! 715 CHESTER AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Real Estate Department
1800 Farnam Street
Omaha. NebrasKa 68102
Fax (402) 997-3601
March 2, 1999 . ,-,., -
Folder No.: 865-94
U.S. Certified Mail #Z 507 195 4]7
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Grady:
I am the Real Estate Manager for Union Pacific Railroad Company. I am based in Omaha,
Nebraska, but I cover a territory in California that includes Kern County. My responsibilities
include sales, leases and property management.
This letter is in response to yours dated February 24, 1999, conceming General Plan
Amendment P99-0028, and the proposed deletion of Pacheco Road between Old River and
Gosford Roads.
I would like to go on record as opposing this plan for two reasons. The first is that we will lose
access to our Right-of-Way for maintenance and operating purposes. The second is that I am
in the process of selling some of this Right-of-Way to another party, who intends to develop this
property in the future. Deletion of this road would restrict these development possibilities and
the accompanying property tax and employment benefits to the City.
I have already scheduled my next trip to Califomia for the week of March 22"", and will not be
able to attend the March 18t" Public Heanng, but I would like to discuss these plans with you
~Jrther
I would also ask that you revise the address for future public notices to the one shown above.
This last notice went to our Tax Department, who does a good job of forwarding these to me,
but it adds a few days to the transit time.
If you have any questions for me or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call
me at (402) 997-3561.
Respectf~
:Jim Larson
~~al Estate