HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 120-99RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DENYING PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN
(LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CASE NO. P99-
0087)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held public
hearings on MONDAY, JUNE 14 1999, THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1999, and
THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1999 on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty
(20) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a
local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P99-0087.
Porter Robertson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. has requested to amend
the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan by
modifying the conditions of approval for General Plan Amendment 4-90,
Segment IV by deleting Condition No. 7 restricting residential lot sizes to
a minimum of 12,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet and 8,500 square
feet within the R-1 Zone, Zone Change from R-1-12,000, R-1-10,000 and
R-1-8,500 to R-1 (One Family Dwelling-6,000 square foot minimum lot
size) for property generally located at the southwest corner of Johnson
Road and Renfro Road; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, an Initial Study was
conducted, and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a
significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration with mitigations was
prepared; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and
adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA
Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 115-99 on July 1, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended 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, 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 proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10)
calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. All required notices have been given.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have been followed.
3. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment subject to mitigation measures as shown on Exhibit "A".
4. The deletion of the restriction on the residential lot sizes, while
consistent with the density range of the Low Density Residential designation as defined
in the Land Use Element, is incompatible with the rural character of existing residential
development in adjoining areas.
5. The proposed land use designation is not consistent with the level
of circulation access and public services expected to be provided to the site and
immediately adjacent areas.
6. The previous request for a Low Density Residential land use
designation and R-1 zoning on the site and adjacent area, pursuant to General Plan
Amendment 4-90, Segment IV and Zone Change Case No. 5093, was approved in
1991, contingent on the inclusion of tiers of lots restricted to a minimum of 12,000
square feet and 10,000 square feet (R-1-12,000 and R-1-10, 000) along the northern
boundary of any future tract map, and a minimum R-1 lot size of 8,500 square feet over
the remainder of the site, in response to heavy opposition expressed by area residents.
7. A potential mitigation for the neighborhood compatibility impacts of
the reduced lot sizes that would be permitted by the approval of this request exists in
the form of requiring the configuration of any future tract map to restrict access from
residential lots along the northerly and easterly site boundaries and requiring masonry
wall screening combined with landscaping along the same outer boundaries.
8. 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 April 30, 1999, in
accordance with CEQA.
2, F~- r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are true and
correct.
2. The Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby approved
and adopted.
3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports
and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission
to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
4. The City Council hereby DENIES General Plan Amendment Case No.
P99-0087, a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment IV by deleting Condition No.
7 restricting lot sizes to a minimum of 12,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet and 8,500
square feet within the Low Density Residential designation in the area, as shown on the
map marked Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for
property generally located at the southwest corner of Johnson Road and Renfro Road.
......... o0o ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
AUP~ 1 I. 1999 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
o f
Council of the City of Bakersfield
3
APPROVED AlJll 1 t 1999
)' ~ ~/"'%""
BOB PRICE ~
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
MJM:pah
July 13, 1999
P:\RES\0087.CC.RES.wpd
4
EXHIBIT "A"
Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0087
Mitigation Measures
Prior to submittal of a tentative map on the site, a qualified archaeologist shall
complete an archaeological study in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. All measures recommended by such study shall be
completed prior to recordation of the tract map. In the event that human remains
are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. Within 30 days of
completion of such field work a technical report should be submitted to the
Archaeological Information Center. Proof of compliance with any
recommendations resulting from such evaluation, if required, shall be submitted
to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at
California State University, Bakersfield, and to the City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department.
Future development on the site shall be subject to the Phase II Regional Impact
Fee program for traffic facilities mitigation, as determined by the Traffic
Engineer.
Future development on the site shall provide for installation of minimum six foot
high masonry wall screening with an adequate landscaped buffer strip along the
northerly (Johnson Road) and easterly (Renfro Road) boundaries. Wall and
landscape design shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the
provisions of Section 16.28 of Title 16, Bakersfield Municipal Code
(Subdivisions).
The overall residential density on the property subject to General Plan
Amendment/Zone Change Case P99-0087 shall not exceed three units per
acre.
P:\Exhibits\P99-0087.ea.wpd
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P99-0087
... s~ ~ ~: s~ o s~
I--. I---
, =
~ JOHNSON ROAD
OEL. ETE..CON. OITION 7 or,
'GPA 4-90, SEGMENT
R-IA
LR f~,~..~,,l~'(
R -IA
't"'~ ] LMR
i
R-IA
400
I
SCALE IN FEET
T295, R26E
GC
STOCKDALE
HIGHWAY
COUNTY
CITY
iER
o
34 35
39907
:.~, !.
Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Paoe 2
Commissioner Brady stated that he did not attend the pre-meeting o ' nday, June 14,
1999, but had listened to the tape and would be participating i Ight's meeting.
3. CONSFNT AGFNnA ITFM$ - (marked by s ' k
C
3.1) Agl!~l- Item 6 - Gener-i P..~, Findktg
A motion was made ommissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner
4. AppR2:~~nsent Agenda Item. Motion carded.
otion was made by Commlsl~ner Kemper seconded by Commmsr~oner Brady to
~minutes of the re;u r meeting he~ June 3, 1999. M;o carded. '
5. .E.M~.J~d~itlNtl - GFNFRAL PLAN AIIEN[IIIF4iI~, ~TI=In RI=7OIINGI.
KFRN RNFR PI AN Fl FMFNT ANn CIRCUI &TION FI FMI=NT AMFNDMFNTS:
5.1 .a) General Plan Amendment P99-0087 - Porter Robertson Fnqineerinq (wmd 4)
Combined with 5.1 .b below'.
s.1 .b)
Public portion of the hearing was oponod. Mr, W'dliam Bailey spoke in
of the projed, He statmd ltmt he is prot}ably the most ~kclmd ProPeftY owner-
On the l:dan he lao,~'sLthemis:nodeldOnmicmof~myslmetm, At the p~ese~t
~ them. is amlemlelBi2~ll, l~li~._'=-...,t".z.::-~::-Z'_ Z :_'-_--: :: ~ e'~.
Ryder which is unpaved. The lilt tjrne he inquired, this was not a dedicate~
road. He has a lot of problem with people using the unpaved road which keeps
his home and proparty very dirty.
No one else spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson, with Porter Robertson,
spoke in favor of the projecL. He ,mild :thatdue to the irr~r shape. of this
piece of property, the tiered zoning placed on this property several years ago
places an excessive restriction on the property when trying to design it, It was
originally laid out by Cuesta Engineering and it created lots that fronted on
Johnson Road, Ryder Street and Renfro Road. The odginal design created 118
lots. Research has indicated that the major demand in ~ is
7,500 and 8,500 square foot lots. Based on that Mr. Robertson did a layout of
this area and they created a density of 150 lots which exceeded what was
originally laid out by 32 lots. Because of that they submitted the request to delete
Condition Number 7 which originally created the tiered zoning. After the
application was submitted, Mr. Robertson contacted individuals who were
exDressing concern or objections to the proposa. After meeting with the prop.. .ef~_-.:
owners in the area, it was concluded that rather than delete the condition, it /~::
';:'~, :, :::
.... , ...,.,, .~
Minutes, PC, Thursday, June 17, 1999 Page 3
would be better to amend the condition to place a maximum density of three
dwelling units per gross acre on the site. The owner also decided as a result of
the meeting, that they would construct a block wall with landscaping in
accordance with city standards along Johnson Road, Ranfro Road a.nd Ryder.
Therefore, no lots would front on any artedal or collector road within the city.
That should effectively act as a buffer between the area and the area to the
north. As a result of the meeting, he brought correspondence from the people he
met with who are now in agreernent with the amendment to the Condition. A
letter came to the Planning Department the day before the Planning Commission
meeting with a petition signed by eight residents. Since Mr. Robertson did not
have time to meet with the individuals, he stated that if a decision on the project
could not be reached tonight that he would like to request a continuance of two
weeks so that he might be able to meet with them.
Public portion of the headng was closed.
Commissioner Boyle asked Stanley Grady, Planning Director, if they were to
approve the three units per acre and block wall, if the Commission had a
resolution and findings to make that kind of decision tonight. Mr. Grady
responded by saying that it was not available tonight. Commissioner Boyle
stated that he would be in agreement of a continuance so the neighbors and all
parties could see what is now being proposed.
Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Robertson what is different today than in 1991
that the tiered zoning is excessively restrictive in trying to lay out and develop a
piece of property due to the. irreguler~"of this prof/.ly. Mr. Robertson and
the current owner were not involved with the original zoning restrictions.
Commissioner Brady asked staff if the zoning the was pieced on the property
zone change approval. Commissioner Brady also asked staff if some other
change had occurred since the deal was struck? Mr. Grady stated that if the
surrounding properties are not in disagreement with the change, then staff would
recommend approval.
Mr. William Bailey stated that he was present for most of the meetings when this
project was first proposed in 1991 and there were a great deal of different
approaches made on this land. That particular parcel of land had been fallow for
several years and had bean invaded by endangered species (kangaroo rats and
lizards). At the time the proposal was first made, Fish and Game objected to the
Negative Declaration. The size of the lots were a compromise to the residents.
Commissioner Brady said that he did not have enough information in front of him
to make this change. If Mr. Robedson wants to take this back to the neighbors
and work out a new compromise, he would support a continuance to atlow them
to do that.
Minutes, PC, Thumday, June 17, 1999
Pege4
Commissioner Kemper stated that she also supported a continuance. She feels
the prior compromise worked at that time but when you look at it it is obvious that
it will be difficult to design a tract with the three tiers and the narrow bands.
Commissioner Kernper feels the three units per acre is a better compromise for
the entire area.
Commissioner Boyle feels the three unit per acre is also an acceptable
compromise but would like to get the neighbors agreement. If it is not acceptable
to the neighborhood, then Commissioner Boyle does not want to undo something
the City Council has agreed with.
Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Robertson what the source of his research
was in regards to the deskability of the smaller square footage of lots? Mr.
Robertson responded by saying it was market researchdone by the property
owner within the last year. Commissioner McGinnis then asked Mr. Robertson
how many 6,000 square foot lots does he foresee in the project?. Mr. Robertson
said 10 percent of the 150 lots.
Commissioner Slurague commented that the demand for 6,000 and 8,000 square
foot lots is high right now and there are not a lot of them. He did support a
continuance.
Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if Johnson Road is a collector?. Ms.
Shaw said she would expeot~ Johnson Road is a callactor but that she did not
know for sum; Co, .~l~aaic,,,lr[hmtml.lNead Mr. Roblltlon if the existing
,~.~1~1= .~,~'on. meRem'aid~me road,w~.pmmy.~ .dmm lqx~d and. if so
are they fronting Johnson Road and do they take access from Johnson Road?
Mr. Robertson said they can take access off of Johnson Road but they am 2-1/2
acre lots and front on Sunnydi~ The majority of Iofm back on to Johnson Road.
notbNm
Jolh,s~xf Road? Mr. Gredy~ by saying it would not be required on
Johnson Unless the lots were double fronting (meaning the backs of the lots were
on the collector and the from of the lot faced a local interior street). Under some
circumstances, we do allow homes to front on collectors.
Commismoner Dhamw~ Mr; Robertlen that hewouid not look favorab~
upon putting a masonry i'eubdiiia:;,,~, like in the uttNf:,;z.f..xl part of Bak~,~dl~jJ,
into a rural area. Commisaiorter Dhanens asked Mr. Gredy if a two week
continuance would be o.k. or would the project have to go on another general
plan cycle? Mr. Grady said, ll"md: this would still be within the. perumeters of the
notice.
Commissioner Dhanens said that he would not be opposed to a continuance.
Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner
Kemper, to continue this item to the Planning Commissioner heanng of July 1, ~, ,,:..:/:~,.,~
1999. Motion carded. .~.
DRAFT
EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES FOR JULY 1, 1999
m
PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment P99-0087 - Porter Robertson
Engineering (Ward 4) (Continued from June 17, 1999)
Staff report recommending denial was given. There was no additional information from
staff regarding this project. The applicant was present to answer any questions the
Commission might have.
Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. William Bailey spoke in opposition. He
said that he had expected a call from Mr. Robertson explaining the project during the last
two weeks but had not heard from him.
Harold Robertson, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Mr. Robertson said that he
did fail to contact Mr. Bailey as he was notified of a meeting with the neighbors very late
and didn't have an opportunity to contact him. One of the neighborhood concerns is the
traffic along Johnson and Sunnybank Roads. Mr. Robertson said that instead of deleting
Condition No. 7, they would like to amend it with the recommendation that they construct
a block wall and landscape around the perimeter and that they limit density within this
piece of property to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Boyle asked staff if the Commission approved what the applicant is
requesting, does that guarantee that there will be houses facing or accessing onto to
Johnson Road? Mr. Grady said if that condition was placed on the project, it would
guarantee it.
Mr. Bailey, a resident in the area, said there is no such thing as Johnson Road. It is just
a farm road that people use all the time and raise dirt on his property. Mr. Robertson
said that when a development comes in to the area the south half of Johnson Road will
be dedicated to the city and be approved to city subdivision standards. The standards
are that Johnson Road is a collector and there will be 34 feet of paving with curbs,
gutters and sidewalks. Commissioner Kemper asked about the north side of the road.
Mr. Grady said that the applicant will only be required to put in half street width. Steve
Walker, Traffic Engineer, said that the north half of the road is in the county and that
subdivision was allowed to be developed without any improvements on Johnson Road.
The applicant is only responsible for the south half but there would be connections to the
existing streets. It would remain as a 34 foot wide street until such time as the county or
the residents who live on the north side decide to put in a road.
Mr. Robertson said that there is enough room for two lanes of traffic on a 34 foot wide
street. There won't be any driveways or anything along Johnson Road that would
conflict with that traffic.
Commissioner Dhanens stated that he feels from a planning standpoint that it is not a
good idea in an area that has some existing development to start changing it and
switching it around and a portion of it going to a brick wall with houses backing onto
Johnson Road. He feels that this is a rural area with large lots and a brick wall would be
out of place. Commissioner Dhanens feels that changing the lot size, reducing it, turning
DRAFT
inward to the street, being inconsistent with what is to the west on Heath Road is not in
the best interest to the neighborhood. He supports staffs recommendation to deny the
project.
Commissioner Brady agrees with Commissioner Dhanens in theory but feels that there
should be some better separation between the residents living there and to the north and
the only thing he knows about is the block wall.
Mr. Robertson responded by saying that he agrees with Commissioner Dhanens
comments about the characteristics of this area. But to the east there are residential
subdivisions that are being constructed.
Commissioner Boyle stated that he would not support the project primarily because
there has been a political compromise worked out previously. Commissioner Boyle feels
that when there has been a political compromise made that has been negotiated by the
City Council and the then owners of the property, he is reluctant to change it without the
City Council giving its' blessing. Commissioner Boyle feels that the City Council should
decide what the political compromise should be.
Commissioner Sprague said that he supported staffs recommendation but that this
project is a prime example why joint workshops between the city and county could be
useful.
Motion by made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to adopt
the resolution approving and adopting a mitigated Negative Declaration and denying the
requested General Plan Amendment based upon findings present in said resolution (see
attached Exhibit "E-1 ") and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac
NOES:
Commissioner Brady
ABSENT: None
Motion by made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to adopt
the resolution approving and adopting a mitigated Negative Declaration and denying the
requested Zone Change as requested based upon findings present in said resolution
(see attached Exhibit "E-1 ") and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac
NOES:
Commissioner Brady
ABSENT: None
DRAFT
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266
BAKERSFIELD
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.
For more information, please call the department at (805) 326-3733.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
MJM:pjt
s:gpa-june\OO87-al
City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P99-0087
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan changing the conditions of approval for General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment
IV and Zone Change No.5093 by deleting Condition No. 7 restricting residential lot
sizes to a minimum of 12,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet and 8,500 square feet
within the R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone.
PROJECT LOCATION:
South of Johnson Road, west of Renfro Road.
PROJECT SIZE:
52.47+~- acres
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The site is nearly level and is located along the southern limit of rural residential
development in the Rosedale community near the western edge of the City of
Bakersfield. Two oil wells, three storage tanks and associated pipelines are located
near the northwest corner of the property, on the south side of Johnson Road. The site
has been cultivated in field crops in the past, and is presently fallow. No structures of
historical value are on the property, and no known sites of cultural significance are on
the site.
Adjacent roadways, consisting of Johnson Road and Renfro Road, are paved to two
lane widths and improved to rural standards. Rural residential development adjoins the
property to the north and east. The south boundary of the site is bordered by the future
right-of-way corridor for the Kern River Freeway. The anticipated date for construction
of this freeway is uncertain.
If approved, removal of the condition restricting minimum lot sizes on the site would
result in an increased development potential of 32 lots, for a total of 150 lots on the site.
The overall gross residential density would increase from about 2.25 units per acre to
nearly 2.9 units per acre. The existing Low Density Residential land use designation
allows a maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.
MJM:
P99-OO87.is
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P99-0087
~ ~"' SR o
,., SR < rt ~-
r'~ n., ~-- Z
JOHNSON ROAD
SR
DELETE CONDITION 7 OF
GPA 4-90, SEGMENT
,//
R-IA
'~iG LR ~9.~.t,~t~''{
.
~ R - IA '~'~¢"'~'
~ LM
~ i
i
I
R-IA
400
0
SCALE IN FEET
T29S, R26E
GC
I
STOCKDALE I HIGHWAY
COUNn'
clrr
0
34 35
, :~, i>H'
ZONE CHANG
P99-0087
R-S-1A
R-S-1A
JOHNSON ROAD
7//. '///7, -///~, 7//. '/
;R-1(12,000) TO R-
R-S-1A
CITY'
~(~o,ooo) TO R-~:
R- 1 (8,500) TO R-
2/./,
A
R-~ (8.500)
!
A ~'~'irc?' R-2 I
" ~'~'~'~ .........i R-1
i
A
0 400
SCALE ~N FEET
T29S, R26E
C-1
I
STOCKDALE I HIGHWAY
COUNt1"
C{/'Y'
34
iA
R1
35
99408
Proiect No. General Plan Amendment/
Zone Change Case F~-0087
!. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EARTH
Soils
Geolo~m
Tooogr~Dny
AIR :
Air
Cii~r
R-'1~
Tr~ ~'~
Air~tl
S - Significant
IMPACT..· MITIGATION I E/FFEC'r::'-::'
::S:::i P 4 I Y'I N ): ORD:.':'t'
d
:'.':E:::"' :': -::E:
X X
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
X
X
(NOTE
LAND USE
Gm I~an/Zoning
GrCRMm |nducemenT
Prime ~ ~ ~
PUB~ S~ES
S~
S~/W~ Ois~
F~I~ M~
Wi
W~
H~l HtBS
k
's::!
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
·. ,::-:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ABOVE IMPACTS I$ ATTACHED.)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I = ir~Jnlcant/No ~ V = Ye~ N = No ORD = OrdinErme Rxlt~, .~s.d
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Doll ~ Oroiect have m m IO acreeve sl~xt-lsfm. to
~ Im~ on ~e m,1,~Al · i$ ~e of which ~Cm in a
O~el me prolem Pave m which inelividuatlV limitreel. but cumm conmelee/me? (A protecfffmyim~on Iwo or
DoesmlmmR~heve sti-,-=--: 'eltmmwi~will~meri'E -;' 'mmen mlesleee, mtherelime~
Y N
xx
GPA/ZC P99-0087
Projt, et No.
IlL
FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION
{Prt,nts w~er~ · Ne_nam Decia~uon or EIR has not t~een preymusty prepare0. or wmmt~ a prmmmm 0omnmm mmli no~
~ uulized.)
ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION (che~k one):
It has been found that the proposed pwject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment: therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
XX
It has been found that althougja the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a s~gntcut eifect in this case because MITIGATION
MEASURF~ as identitied in the Discminion o~ Environmental Impacts. have been incorporated
into the project: therefore. a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has been iound that the proposed project MAY have a sigmtificant effect on the environment,
and an ~__IR (ENVIRONMENTAL LMPACI' REPORT) will be prepared.
PREPARED BY: ~/,//{/L_~ DATE:
Michael J. McCabe, Assistant Planner
RR
ER
SR
LR
LIIR
HIIR
HR
HC
GC
IIC
OC
MUC
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
. Rural Reslclentla.1. 2.5 gross LI t Light Industrial)
acres/dwej. l.blg unll:)
Sl t Serwce industnai~
Estate Residential 1 dwel.].j. ng
unzt/net acre) EH ~Heavy [ndustnal~
i Suburt}an Residential - ~ess than
or eOual to 4 dwellj. ng units/net ....
acre ~
i Low Oens~ty Reszdent~al ~ess P Public FaciUdes)
t,an or eclual to 7.26 Owelling
units I net acre ) PS < PublicsPrivate School~
( Low MedZum Density Reszdentlal PT [Public Transportation}
greater Than 4 aria leas than or
eOual to 10 dwell£ng unZts/net
acrel P.SW (Solid Waste Facilities}
(HZgn MeOWurn Density Res~dent:al - OS lOpen Space}
greater Than 7.26 aria less than
17.42 clweLl.~ng units/net acre) OS-P (Parks)
(High Oens~ty ResXdentZal
greater than 17.42 and less than OS-S (Slopes)
or eclual to 72.6 dwe~l£ng units
/net acre ) R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture,
20 ac~r.s
( HIghway Commercial) R-EA (Resource-Extensive Agriculture,
20 acres minimum)
(Generaj. Commercial)
(Maior Commercial) R-Mr (Resourge-MineraiPetroicum,
5 acres mum}
( Offi. ce CoimercZa~ )
(aXxfl Use Coamerc~a~)
General Raa Sirsel C'bss~e- ~1~
F~providemto thzough tnt~~ly
with no mzss to abutting propc, t.f and no at-grade
g. _.,__.)0 are arterial highways with at leal partial
mauol of s~ which may or may not be divided or
have gnde separations at intersections and may be an
interim fKifity for an guimste freeway.
traffic. with a amdmal tunaion m provide
mzessmabutt property.
C;tkL'r_, ftmc~oa to coum loca4 sttees
with arteriais and to provide access to
abutting riopasty.
Lagaim are ~,ly for psopc, t,~ accms mad
tluoup tra~c is di~ouragt~L
f~ioee
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING DESIGNATIONS
'R-1
E
R-S
cone Famfiy Dwelling - 6.000 sq. ft./dwelling umt)
lEstate - 10.000 sq.fl./dwetling umt~
(Residential Suburban - 24.000 sq. ft./dwelling umt ~
R-S-1A i Residential Suburban. one-acre minimum lot size}
R-S-2.SA (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre minimum lot
size}
R-S-5A (Residential Suburban five-acre minimum lot size~
M-1 ¢ Light Manufacturing)
M-2 l General Manufacturing)
M-3 I Heaw Industrial~
A ( Agriculture
A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre mimmum}
P (Automobile Parking)
RE (Recreationl
R-S-10A (Residential Suburban ten-acre minimum tot size l Ch (Church)
R-2
R-3
i Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 12.500
sq. ft. ,:dwelling taut)
tLimited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/1.250
sq. ft./dwelling umt ) D
R-4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/600 AD
, sq.ft./dwelling taut)
FP-P
R-H (Residential Holding)
FP-S
PUD (Planned Unit Development)
AA
C-O (Professional and Admimstration Office}
C-I (Neighborhood Commercial)
C-2 (Regional Commercial)
SC
C-C (Commercial Center}
OS i Open Space
HOSP. ~Hosp~tal)
{Architectural Design) (no longer in use)
(Architectural Design)
(Floodplain Primary)
(Floodplain Secondary)
(Airport Approach)
(Travel Trailer Park)
(Mobilehome}
(Semor Citizen}
PCD (Planned Commercial Development)
fizone. 1
,.I .
APPENDIX I
Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0087
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
Soils - Construction of the proposed project will result in about 52.5 acres of the soils of the Cajon
sandy loam unit 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.
Geologic Hazards - Geology of the site consists of alluvial fan deposits dedved primadly from
granitic rock, which are not considered a unique geologic or physical feature. The site is
currently used for agriculture and is also occupied by an oil well and related tanks. The proposed
project would not create an unstable earth condition or cause changes to any geologic
substructure. The project will not expose people, structures, or property to major geologic
hazards such as landslides, mudslides or ground failure.
Although no specific geologic hazards are known to occur within the boundaries of the project
site, there are numerous geologic fractures in the earth's crust within the San Joaquin Valley,
which is bordered by major, active fault systems. All development within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Current development standards will
require the project to comply with appropriate seismic design criteria from the Uniform Building
Cede, 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, canals or beaches are near the project site to be
impacted by the proposed development. Typical ordinance requirements ensure that erosion,
sittation or deposition of soils from the site by water run-off will not occur through development of
the project, nor through drainage of the site after construction. Wind erosion and fugitive dust
may occur during the construction process; however, normal use of water spraying will control
wind erosion impacts and should not be considered significant.
Topography - The slope of the natural terrain on-site is fiat. Project development will not result in
a change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features of the area to a significant
degree.
Wa~er
Water Quality I Quantity -
Groundwater - The project will not alter the direction or rate of flow, or substantially deplete the
quantity of groundwater resources, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. The project will not contaminate a public water
supply, substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially degrade water quality,
Water service would be provided for the development by the California Water Service Company;
however, the cumulative impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant.
Appendix I
GPNZC P99-0087
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 within 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.
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 pollutant 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 th s impa~qP'"
would not be immediate. A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing
Appendix I
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 3
animal species, but this impact would essentially be displaced from its existing location. Although
existing species of animals on-site would be removed through construction of the realignel
roadway as well as related urban development, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife
community or substantially diminish or significantly reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban
development are not deemed significant.
Rare/Endangered Species - Permits and approvals for development associated with this project
will be subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and
associated 10(a)(1 )(B) and 2081 permits issued to the City by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for
development projects to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens and notify
agencies pdor to grading. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan may be
reviewed at the following location: City of Bakersfield, Planning Department, 1715 Chester
Avenue, 2rid 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 may generate additional vehicular movement, as
shown in Table "1". The project in conjunction with adjacent approved development may
potentially cause an increase in traffic which may be substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may substantially impact existing
transportation systems. significantly alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods. A full traffic study has not been required for the proposal. However, the impacts of
the proposal shall be reduced to less than significant in accordance with the Circulation Element
policies that all on-site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this development be
mitigated. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated
according to the regional traffic impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building
permits. These measures are listed in Appendix "A", "Recommended Mitigation Measures".
TABLE 1
Proposed Project
Traffic Generation
PROPOSED ACREAGE
LAND USE/ UNITS OR
ZONING SO. FT.
I .-~ I
I TOTAL I
150 single family units
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Ed, 1991
AVERAGE VEHICLE
TRIP ENDS
9.57 trips per day
TOTAL TRIP
ENDS
1,436 trips per day I
1,436 trips per day L, ;:~ ,~: ~
~.~- ......
:.:~ ;.:~!~!.~,:
Appendix l
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 4
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, which require the provision of two off-street parking spaces per residential unit.
Traffic Hazards - There would be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed collector realignment.
AirNVate~Rail Systems - The project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological - It is not known if archaeological or historical resources are located on the site.
No recorded archaeological or historical resources have been located on the site. The
Archaeological Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield,, has reviewed this
proposal and has recommended in a letter dated January 28, 1999, that if cultural resources are
unearthed during ground disturbance, all work should be halted in the area of the find. A
professional should then be called in to evaluate the findings and recommend any necessary
mitigation measures. Prior to recordation of a final map, evidence of compliance with any such
recommended mitigations shall be submitted to the Archaeological Information Center and to the
City of Bakersfield Development Services Department.
Histoncal - The site has been 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory or result in
adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. 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 "2". 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 2
Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties
LAND USE I ZONING
nF,qlGNATIctN I'llSTRICT IANn ilSF.
I OCATJC~N
NORTH Suburban Residential Residential Suburban Rural Residential with
- 1 acre* farm animals
SOUTH
R eso u rce- I n ten s ive
Agriculture, Low Medium
Density Residential,
General Commercial
One Family Dwelling, Vacant,
Multiple Family future Kern River
Dwelling (R-2), Freeway r ght-of-w~Ll~
Nei.qhborhood Com. ~.. ~',
Appendix I
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 5
] LAND USE I ZONING I
neATInN nFm~N&TinN rURTRICT I ANt1 IIRF
EAST Estate Residential, Suburban Residential Rural Residential
Suburban Residential Agriculture*
WEST Resource-Intensive Agriculture Agriculture, vacant
*City Prezoning within County jurisdiction
General Plan/Zoning - The present land use designation on the site is Low Density Residential,
with existing zoning of R-1 (One Family Dwelling)- 12,000, 10,000, and 8,500. The proposal will
not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area, other than a
minor increase in residential density of an overall average of less than one unit per acre). No
amendment in the Low Density land use designation, or underlying R-1 zoning of the site are
proposed. 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 would allow for an increase in residential development
potential from about 118 dwelling units to 150 single family lots. This potential increase in density
is not substantial, and will not have a significant impact in terms of inducing growth.
Prime Agricultural Land - No agricultural crops presently exist on the site, although cultivation has
historically taken place in the area. The property has been designated for urban level residential
use upon its annexation into the City in 1991, and a tentative map was previously approved on
the site. There will be no impact upon the amount of available pdme agricultural land In the lot g
run, as the entire site has been designated for urban level development.
Public Services
P01k;e - Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project
buildout. Current City Police service standards require 1.32 officers for each 1,000 people in the
city. Projected increase of 453 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of .6
additional law enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential
increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not
deemed significant:
Fire - Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint
fire protection agreement between the City and County. Projected increase of 453 new residents
and 150 new residential structures into the City through the proposal may necessitate the
addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service; however, this
potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this
development and is not deemed significant.
Schools - Proposed development of residential land uses could produce up to 150 housing units
and could generate approximately 97 school-age children as indicated in Table "3". This
increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. Existing school impact
fees and increased property tax revenues should reduce impacts on schools to less than
significant. Project review by appropriate elementary and high school districts may, however,
identify significant impacts to school facilities through this project, and may recommend additional
mitigation measures be added to the project.
. .
Appendix l
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 6
TABLE 3
School Children Generation
TYPE AND ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL
NUMBER OF K -8 9 - 12 PUPILS
DWELLING
UNITS
72 25 97
I TOTALS I 72 I 25 97
Source: 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS.
Parks / Recreation - The project proposes an increase in population of 453 persons within the
area and would result in an impact upon the quality and quantity of existing recreational
opportunities and create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. As indicated in Table 4,
the park land requirements for the proposed project is calculated based on the General Plan and
City Ordinance Park Standards of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. Total park acreage estimated
for the project is 1.14 acres. The site is located within the boudaries of the North Bakersfield
Recreation and Park District.
TABLE 4
Park Need - Proposed Project
Type of DWELLING PARK PARK ACREAGE
Dwelling UNITS FACTOR NEEDED
Unit
Single Family 150 .0076 (.0091)
TOTAL:
1.14 (1.36)
1.14 (1.36)
source: 1990 Federal Census; City of Bakersfield Planning Department.
Solid Waste / Disposal - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or
substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The development will not breach
published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control.
Facility Maintenance - Street or other public facility improvements from the proposed
development and eventual buildup of the area will result in an increase in maintenance
responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant.
Utilities
water - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would
be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area. Expansion of all
wastewater utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not
significant. The proposed project will not require the extension of any sewer trunk line that wiq~" '::;:i!,.
serve new development.
Appendix I
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 7
Storm Drainage - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems in the area. Expansion of all storm
drain utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered
significant.
Natural Gas - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area. Expansion of all natural gas
utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
Electricity - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area. Expansion of all electric utilities
would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
Communications - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area. Expansion of all
communication systems would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not
considered significant.
Population I Employment I Housing
The proposed project includes dwellings on 52.5+/- acres, with the potential for a maximum of
150 dwelling units. This site could support 453 people (see Table 5) The proposed project will
not induce a substantial concentration or displacement of people, or significantly alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area, or affect
existing housing or create a demand for additional housing.
TABLE 5
Population/Employment Projections
PROPOSED DWELLING PERSON PER POPULATION/
LAND UNITS OR HOUSEHOLD OR EMPLOYMENT
USE SQUARE SO. FT. PER ESTIMATE
FOOTAGE EMPLOYEE
Single Family 150 units 3.02 453
Residential
Sources: Gruen, Gruen and Associates, Employment Densities by Type of Workplace, July 1985, 1990 Federal Census and City
of Bakersfield Planning Department, May 1992,
Health Hazards I Public Safety
No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as
a result of the proposed development. The proposal does not involve a risk of explosions or
releasing hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticicles, 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.
Appendix l
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 8
NOiSe
Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Typical
development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will prevent
substantial increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining area, will not expose people to
severe noise levels, and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant.
Aesthetics
The urbanization of the site will alter the open spaca qualities of the area to a minor degree. The
proposed project is not intending any uses or development in the area that would result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will not have a
substantial, demonstrated negative affect.
Light and Glare
Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities surrounding the proposed
development and anticipated vehicle traffic. Site plan review of the proposed development will
evaluate building location, material selection, lighting design, parking and signage placement to
buffer proposed light impacts from surrounding developments. Proposed uses should not cause
significant light or glare to existing or future development surrounding the site.
Natural Resources
No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the
proposed project.
Energy Usage
The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes,
including uses of nonrenewable energy resources, during the initial and continued phases of the
project. The project will not result in significant energy requirements or lack of energy efficiency
by amount or fuel type of a project's life cycle. The proposal will not result in significant effects on
local and regional energy supplies or on requirements for additional energy capacity or sources,
nor will the project result in significant effects on peak and base period demands for electricity
and other forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it
encourage activities which result in the wasteful or substantial use of significant amounts of fuel,
water, or energy. The project will not result in significant effects on projected transportation
energy requirements or in the projecfs overall use of efficient transportation altematives.
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 cons tierable,
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.
Appendix I
GPNZC P99-0087
Page 9
The project does not have environmental effects which wilt cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Reference List
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County,
Kern COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990.
2. Metropolitan Bakersfield 20~0 General Plan DE/R, The Planning Center, July, 1989.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 20~0 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.
o
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)(1 )(B)
and 2081 permits, 1994.
6. Title 17. Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
7. Title 18, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
MJM
s:gpa-June\0087-ai
EXHIBIT "A"
Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0087
Recommended Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval
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.
The developer shall be subject to the Ordinance provisions of the Regional Traffic
Impact Fee (RTIF) program as applicable to the proposed residential development within
the project.
The applicant/subdivider shall submit conceptual plans for landscaping and walls along
the Johnson and Renfro Road frontages which shall be approved by the Planning
Commission prior to approval of any tentative tract map. The applicant/subdivider shall
either install all landscaping and automatic irrigation systems prior to recordation of any
final map or enter into a separate agreement with the city and post approved security to
guarantee their installation. Prior to recordation of any final map, subdivider shall submit
to the city for approval detailed irrigation, landscape, and wall construction plans.
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Applicant:
Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying, Inc,
representing Bendheim Enterprises, Inc.
Address:
1200 21 st Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Project Title/Location (include City and County)
Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Case P99-0087, generally located southwest of the
intersection of Johnson Road and Renfro Road in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern.
Project Description:
Land Use Element Amendment and Zone Change request to remove condition of approval No. 7 of General
Plan Amendment 4°90, Segment IV and Zone Change Case 5043 imposing lot size restrictions within the Low
. Density Residential land use designation and the R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone.
Finding of Exemption:
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 of the State of California
Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of dcx:umenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the
Lead Agency that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard to
wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711
of the State of California Fish and Game C.,ode, 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.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 16, 1999
Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner - Advanced Planning
Stephen L. Walker, Traffic Engineer
General Plan Amendment P99-0087, SW Comer Renfro and Johnson Roads
Porter Robertson - Land use change to delete land use density restriction
Based on the analysis in the attached letter from Porter-Robertson, the proposed land changes use
will not result in a significant increase in trip generation (32 PM trip increase) from what would
be expected under the current designation. No traffic impact study is required and our
recommendation is that any new development on the site be subject to the Phase II Regional
Impact Fee for residential development.
CC:
PW Memo Files
Marian Shaw. CE IV - Subdivisions
Traffic Engineering File
Attachment
SLW:BJD:bd
P:!p9900874.wpd
PORTER · ROBERTSON
APR 15
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING r,r ~ ^ RTMENT
Mr. Steve Walker,
City Traffic Engineer
City of Bakersfield Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
April 13, 1999
1200
RE: Proposed GPA/Zone Change P99-0087, Proposed Residential
Development at Southwest Corner of Renfro and Johnson Roads
Dear Steve,
I attached a proposed layout which shows 150 lots under the proposed zoning. Under the existing
zoning, a layout for the same area yielded 118 lots. The proposed zone change allows a net
increase of 32 lots.
For your consideration, I have attached calculations showing the trip generation under the existing
and proposed zoning. The proposed zoning causes a net increase of 32 Peak Hour Trips over the
existing zoning. The minimum threshold to require a traffic study is 40 peak hour trips to any
intersection. Any distribution of the 32 additional trips will not exceed this minimum threshold.
Therefore we request that this project should be exempted from the requirement to prepare a
traffic impact study, and should only pay the Regional Transportation Impact Fee.
Thank you for you consideration of this matter. If you need any further information, please call
anytime.
Matt VoViila, P.E.
Cc: Mr. Mike McCabe, Assistant Planner, City of Bakersfield
Harold Robertson, Porter Robert son Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
Attachments
1200 - 21st STREET - BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 - 6611327-0362 - FAX 661/327-106
1134trps.xls
Trip Generation for Proposed G.P.A./Zone Change P99-0087
Current Zoning:
~ .... .:~-~ ' ~!'~;:~: '~': ' ~?~:;~1 24 Hr. Trips
Land Usd ITE Acres/ Units Dwel. Trip I Veh.
Development Type Code GFA per AC Units Rate Trips
Residential 210 51.32 3.27 118 9,57 1,129
P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Trip Veh. Split Split
Rate Trips In Out
1,01 119 76 43
4/13/'99
A.M. Peak Hour TrT~lui~ ]
Trip TV:i.~s ~ SF2it '
Rate
0.75 89 22 66
Proposed Zoning
~ ....................... ' '~ 24Hr. Trips
Land Use/ IT~ Acres/ Units/Ih~el. Trip I Veh.
Development Type Code k-GFA per AC Units Rate Trips
Residential 210 5132 3.95 150 9.57 1,436
P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Trip Veh. Split Split
Rate Trips In Out
1.01 152 97 55
NET INCREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRIPS: 32
tk Hour Trips
il. Split Split
ips In Out
.3.. 28 84
Trip Veh.
Rate Tri
0.75 113
1134trps.xls
Page 1
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Information Form
(To be completed by the applicant.)
**Office Use Only **
INSTRUCTIONS:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an applicant of a project,
such as a those applications listed below or a major development project must provide
information related to the possible impacts which may result from the project. The information
given by the applicant on this form will be used by the City to complete an environmental
analysis of the proposed project according to the provisions of CEQA.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the application. If a question
does not pertain to the proposed project. please indicate by writing "Not Applicable," "N/A," or
explain why the question is not applicable. The applicant may be contacted for further
information after staff has reviewed this completed form.
GENERAl, INFORMATION:
1. Check type of application and provide information, as needed.
1221 Conditional Use Permit []
[] Site Plan Review []
[] General Plan Amendment []
~ Zone Change []
[] Other {List:'~
Tentative Parcel Map No.
Tentative Tract Map No.
Extension of Time: Map No.
Parcel Map Waiver
Name of developer or project sponsor:
Address or general location of project:
List and describe any other permits or other public agency approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
List any associated projects or relationship to a larger project or series of projects:
.~,'
Page I of 4 EIF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (Check as applicable and provide information.)
6. Project Site Size (Acreage or Square Footage):
,
Will theprojectbephased? 'Ill Yes '~ No If yes, what is the anticipated
incremental development or development schedule:
Proposed Use:
'I]I,A. Residential: (Check Type:)
Number of Units:
Square Footage Size of Units:
~ One Family Residential Development
[] Multiple Family Residential Development
Number of Floors:
/qt:z, 74,
[] B. Commercial: (Check Type:)
Describe Type:
[] Retail [] Office
Character of Development: (Check Type:) [] Neighborhood [] Regional
Gross Square Footage of Floor Area: Number of Floors:
Total Number of Employees: Number of Employees per Shift:
[] C. Industrial.
Describe Type:
Gross Square Footage of Floor Area: Number of Floors:
Describe Size and Type of Loading Facilities:
Total Number of Employees: Number of Employees per Shift:
[] D. Institutional.
Describe Type (Major Function):
Gross Square Footage of Floor Area:
Total Number of Employees:
Number of Floors:
Number of Employees per Shift:
[] E. Other.
Describe Type:
Gross Square Footage of Floor Area:
Total Number of Employees:
Page 2 of 4
Number of Floors:
Number of Employees per Shift:
EIF
ADDITIONAl. QUESTIONS:
Are the tbtlowing items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss all items checked yes (attach
additional sheets as necessary.).
[] 9.
Change in existing topographic features or substantial alteration of ground
contours, hills, bodies of water, etc.
[] ~ 10.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
[] l~k 11. Change in the pattem. scale or character of the general project area.
[] ~ 12. Generation of significant amounts of solid waste or .litter.
[] ~1, 13. Creation of dust. ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
[] 14.
Change in lake, river, or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of
existing drainage patterns.
[] ~i~ 15. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
[] ~ 16.
[] 17.
Site is on filled land or on a slope of 10 percent or more.
Use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
'~ammables or explosives.
[] 18.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fixe, water,
sewage, etc.).
Jt [] 19.
[] ~ 20.
The proposal result in water service from any public or private entity. (If so,
give the name of the entity and provide a letter from that entity outlining its
Substantial increase of fossil fuel consmption (electricity, oil,
etc.).
Page 3 of 4 Ell: (397)
ENVIRONMENTAl, SETTING: (.Attach separate sheets as necessary.)
21. A.
Briefly describe the project site as it presently exists, including information on
topography, soil stability, plants and aremats, an _a0. X cul al, hist rical or scenic
Bs
22. A.
B,
Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures.
Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Briefly describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and
animals and any cultural. historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use
(residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one family, apartment houses,
fir: fl,~.~,t~ 7~ ~ nvr~ ; e~ aa t'-g ,~ ,~h ~ e
Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
(Signature)
(Print Name)
CITY OF
CALl
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
GENE BOGART, Manager
FLORN CORE. Water Resources Director
PATRICK E. HAI.~PTMAN. Superintendent
STEVE LAEOND. Forecasting and Records
MAURICE RANDALL. Business Manager
KERN RIVER DISPATCHER 326-3716
Janua~'28, 1999
FORNtA
Mr. Harold Robertson
Porter - Robertson Engineering & Surveying
1200 - 21~' Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Water service to 70.32 acres southwesterly of Johnson Road and Renfro Road
Dear Harold:
The above referenced parcel is currently being included in the domestic water service area of the City
of Bakersfield. Subject to the conditions set tbrth in this letter, the City can supply an adequate supply
of domestic water and water tbr fire protection service to the parcel based on current zoning and water
supply regulations. The water supply will conform with all federal (United States Environmental
Protection Agency), state (California Department of Health Services), and the local agency (Kern
County Health Department) water quality standards. The water supply guaranteed by this letter is
conditioned upon the current zoning of the property covered by the commitment and the current
contemplated water uses. Any change in the zoning or water use negates the guarantee of water
service. Any change in zoning or water use includes any increases or decreases in zoning density or
water use.
The City's normal fire protection service flows are 2500 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). In certain areas
and in certain zoning, fire flow requirements (as determined by the City and/or County Fire
Department) are in excess of the 2500 g.p.m. limit. Fire flow requirement in excess of 2500 g.p.m.
shall require developer fees of $0.50/g.p.m./acre in excess of 2500 g.p.m. or equivalent facilities.
Prior to filing a final tract/parcel map, the developer/owner shall record a covenant for each lot in the
subdivision prohibiting the export of groundwater from the subdivision except by the water purveyor
that is serving the subdivision. The individual property owner is not restricted from using the
groundwater under their land tbr use on their overlying subdivided land.
City tees for inspection of installation of water facilities are currently calculated at fbur (4%) percent of
the estimated construction costs of the in-tract water facilities. In addition, a $10.00 meter installation
1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD
· BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311
Mr. Harold Robertson
(continued) Page - 2 -
fee for each service will be assessed for two inch (2 ") and less in size. The inspection fees are due and
payable to the City by the land owner/developer within thirty (30) days of invoice.
Prior to final recordation of the map tbr the subdivision, water availability fees for water service
facilities are due and payable. Fees are authorized by Bakersfield Municipal Code 14.04.120 (B.) and
set by the City of Bakersfield Water Board with concurrence of the Bakersfield City Council. As of
this date, the fees are set at $2000.00 per gross acre. This tract contains approximately _ 70.32 acres,
therefore, fees due are $140,640.00. However, the t~es may be paid upon further sub-division or
phasing of the tract.
A lot is necessary within the subdivision for the purposes of drilling and equipping domestic water well
facilities. Before acceptance of the lot, a full environmental and hazardous materials review (surface
and subsurface soils) must be conducted. Property for the deepwell site is to be dedicated or may be
purchased by the City. This !and transaction must be conducted prior to the recording of any
tentative tract/parcel map. The lands may be included as part of other City facilities, such as City of
Bakersfield parks, storm drain sumps. etc.
All water mains, service connections. and fire hydrants shall be installed by developer and dedicated to
the City. Plans and specifications for such water mains and appurtenances shall be prepared by or
approval of plans for installation shall be by the City of Bakersfield. All improvements must be
installed or bonded for prior to the City issuing a letter guaranteeing a water supply.
Sincerely,
GENE BOGART
Manager
· /~
By
Patrick E. Hauptman
Water Superintendent
Sent By: ss]v~c; 805 864 24!5; ~an-27-99 5:25P~; Page 2/3
CALIFORNIA :., ....
HISTORICAL ~ FRESNO
INFORMATION
EYSTEM ' '. TU~RE
Southern Ban Joequirt Valley
I~formltlen Center
Callaemil Stlte IJniver~ity, Bakeedleld
9904, Stackdale Hlll~way
Bakershid, California ~1,t11-1099
808/684-239 FAX 806/8~4-241S
Enmlh abaldwingesubak,edu
TO: Mr. Harold Robertson (1tS,~ 99-029)
Porter-Robertson Engineering
1200 21s: Street
Bakersfie)d, CA 93301
bATE: ,Tanuary 28, 1999
RE: PR Zob # 98-/2CX:): Section 34, T295. R26E,
In gakersfietd
County: Kern
Map(s): Stevens 7.5
near ,Tohnson and Ranfro Road
PRIORITY
The 5outhorn Son J'ooquin Valley Information Center is under contract l'o
The 5tote Office of Historic Preservation and is responsible for the local
management of the California Historical Resources Inventories. The Center is
funded by research fees and o grant from the State Office of Historic
Preservation. The Information Center does not conduct fieldwork and is not
affiliated with any archaeological consultants who conduct fieldwork. A referral
list of individuals who meet the Secretary of the lSnterior's Standards for their
profession is available upon request.
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORD5 SEARCH
The following are the results of a search of the cultural resources files at
the 5outhorn 5an ,Toaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center. These files
include known and recorded archaeological and historic sites, inventory and excava-
tion reports filed with this office, and properties lib'red on the National Register
of Historic Places (10/98), the California Historical Landmarks, the California
Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historical Interest.
The following summarizes the known higtoric~l resources information currently
available for this subject property beseo in part on the sources outlined above.
PFL1SOR CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES OF THE SUB,TECT PROPERTY
AND THE SURROUNDIN6 AREAS
According To the information in our files, this project' area was previously
surveyed for cultural resources.
1. KE 866) Parr, Osborne, et nl.-1992-Archaeological Survey Report for the
Proposed Route Adoption Study on Highway 58
PRIORITY
Sent Sy: ss]~ic; 805 664 2415; jan-27-99 5:27PM; Fage 3/3
PRIORITY
99-029)
KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES ON THE 5UB,TECT PI~OPERTY AND
SURROUNDZN6 AREA5
No cultura~ resources were found within this project area durin9 the course
of the field sur~ey.
There are no known cultural resources within the pro3cct are~ or the
immediate vicinity that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places,
California znventory of Historic Places, California HistoNe Resource ~[nventory or
the California State Historic Landmarks.
COMMENT5 AND RECOMMENDAT'ION5
No additional cultural resource investigation is needed at this time. If
cultural resources are unearthed during ground disturbance, all work should halt in
the area of the find. A professional archaeologist should be called in to evaluate
the findings and make any necessary mitigation recommendations.
]~f you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me
(805) 664-2289.
Adele Baldwin
Assistant Coordinator
PRIORITY
bate: ,Tanuary 28, ~999
Fee: $135.00/hr. (Priority Service)
Invoice # 8412
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Marc Gauthier. Principal Planner
e~Marian P. Shaw, Civil Engineer IV
May 11, 1999
GPA P99-0087, SW comer Renfro and Johnson Roads
Porter Robertson - Land use change to delete land use density restriction
A trip generation analysis was prepared by Porter-Robertson showing an insignificant increase in trip
generation ¢please refer to the previous memo, dated April 16, 1999, from Stephen L. Walker). Based on
the analysis, the development should be subject to the Phase II Regional Impact Fee.
The lift station on Renfro Road north of Stockdale Highway has limited capacity. However, the lift station
calculation show that it is able to serve this subdivision as it was originally designed. If the total number'
of units in this tract increases above the designed level of 195 urtits, the developer should submit
documentas~ion that there is sufficient capacity for the excess units,
S: '~Gpa & ZC conai~n~n99-O087 Trot 5551 .wlxl
RMR:mp~
Reading File
lac. qun R. La Ror.~!le
Mama P. Shaw
North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District
4o3 qa~,r :~ve~e, ':~,~er~fie~; c~fom~ 93~o8 (8os)
M a v 5, 1999
Mr. Mike McCabe, Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment P99-0087
Dear Mr. McCabe:
The proposed general plan amendment will result in the increased need for park
and recreation services to meet the 2.5 acres per 1000 population standard.
This increase to park acreage has been reported to be 1.14 acres. The
development ordinance and in-lieu ordinance should adequately address the
impact. Increases in population in city areas could result in the need for
additional park land to serve the area. The District will monitor population
increases in relationship to future dew?lopment.
SincereiV,
Colon G. Bywater
Planning and Construction Director
CGB:bc
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 326-3720 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
Colon G. Bywater
Planning and Construction Director
North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District
405 Galaxy Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93308
RE: General Plan Amendment P99-0087
Dear Mr. Bywater:
The department acknowledges receipt of your letter dated May 5, 1999, providing
comments on the above referenced General plan amendment and Zone Change request. The
proposed increase in residential density on the site, if approved, will be subject to parkland
dedication or in-lieu ordinance and parks development fee schedule in effect at the time that
development is actually approved or initiated on the site.
Please contact this office if you have any further concems or questions regarding the initial
study or proposed Negative Declaration.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
MJM
S: 1-99-0087-nor
City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
I ERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
KELLY E BLANTON, Superintendent
May 10, 1999
Michael J. McCabe, Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Our File No.: CI99-0037
RE: General Plan Amendment P99-0087 (West side of Renfro Road, South of
Johnson Road
Dear Mr. McCabe:
This office represents the Rosedale Union and Kern High School Districts.
The districts have been advised that Government Code Sections 65995, 65996, and
65997 (as amended with an operative date of November 4, 1998) now prohibit the City
of Bakersfield from denying or refusing to approve a legislative act such as that in this
case on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. For this reason, neither district
expects the City to impose any additional condition related to the financing of public
school facilities at this time.
With respect to elementary school facilities, this property is within the boundaries of
Community Facilities District 92-1 (CFD 92-1 ) in the Rosedale Union School District.
This means that any development within the area will be subject to the special taxes
levied by CFD 92-1. If the applicant would like a copy of the document showing the
amounts of these taxes, please contact our office. Payment of these taxes will mitigate
the impacts on elementary school facilities and, therefore, the district would not be
requesting additional mitigation even if the City were authorized to require it.
With respect to high school facilities, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65995, 65995,
65996, and 65997, mitigation of this project°s impacts on public school facilities will be
limited to the collection of statutory fees authorized under Education Code Section 17620
and Govemment Code Sections 65995,, 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7 (all as amended
with an operative date of November 4, 1998) at the time that building permits are issued.
Currently these fees are set at $1.93 per square foot, an amount subject to COLA
1300 17tn Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533
· . . advocates for ch,jh~.el~
· 1805J 636-4000 · FAX
Michael J. McCabe
2 May 10, 1999
CI99-0037
adjustment every two years. However, if either or both districts adopt the alternative fees
authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5 and/or 65995.7, fees required for this
project may be significantly higher than the current amount. For example, the alternative
fee under Government Code Section 65995.5 is nominally 50 percent of construction cost,
while that under Government Code Section 65995.7-which can be levied when the State's
school facilities program runs out of money-is nominally 100 percent of construction cost.
The method specified in newly added Government Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and
65995.7 for calculating the alternative fees is quite different than that utilized by the districts
to calculate both the current fee and mitigation requirements under the Kern County Plan for
Adequate Schools and Affordable Housing ("Kem County Plan"). For this reason, and since
the districts have not had the opportunity to obtain the data and make the calculations
specified in those sections, no estimates can be provided at this time as to what those fees
might actually be.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, or
if we can be of any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me at
636-4599, or through e-mail at sthartsetl@kern.org.
Sincerely,
Kelly F. Blanton
County S 'nten/pent of Schools
Stephen L. Hartsell, Director
School Distdct Facility Services
SLH/MLW
cc: Rosedale Union School District
Kern High School District
G:'~DIVADMIN~DFS~CORRES~99 Cily~;199-.0037,w~d
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 326-3720 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
Stephen L. Hartsell, Director
School District Facility Services
County Superintendent of Schools
1300 17tn Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: General plan Amendment and Zone Change P99-0087
Dear Mr. Hartsell:
The department acknowledges receipt of your agency's letter commenting on the above
referenced land use case. The project in question, including the proposed increase in residential
density if approved, will be subject to the taxes levied within Community Facilities District 92-1 for
the Rosedale Union School District, and shall be subject to collection of the statutory fees in effect
at the time of issuance of building permits with respect to the Kern High School District. Should
the school districts in question elect to adopt alternative fees as authorized by the Government
Code, such fees shall be collected at the time of permit issuance in accordance with City
ordinance provisions in effect at that time.
Thank you for your interest in this land use case.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
MJM
S:1-99-0087.sh
City of Bakersfield
· 1 715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
Dave Merritt
Certified Financial Planner
340 Renfro Road
Balu'rsfleM. California 93312
661 588-2261
Mr. Michael J. McCabe
Assistant Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Rez
CFTY CF DAKERSFIELD
?LANNING mr,r-, ~TMENT
General Plan Amendment P99-087
Porter Robinson Engineering
Dear Mr. McCabe,
I am opposed to the 6,000 square tbot lot size proposed in the amendment. Ad:ter a lengthy
process that began in 1990 the zomng on this project was resolved with the tiered lot sizes in
order to be somewhat compatible with existing adjacent property. As you are aware the
surrounding area is zoned for large animals. The zone change under consideration for this 51.32
acres would yield somewhere in excess of 300 homes. A more reasonable alternative must be
tbund
My objections to the zone change have not changed, points and authorities, and comments are
contained in your files and are incorporated herein by this reference.
General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment IV and Zoning ZUA 5093
My November 18, 1990 letter and attached signatures of 29 people opposed to the
zoning proposed in that annexation.
My December 20, 1990 letter and attached signatures of 178 people opposed to
the zoning proposed in that annexation and citing our opposition to the Negative
Declaration pursuant to CEQA Section 15064 (h)( 1 ) and the reasons we cited.
The presentation made, and copies provided for your files, at the December 20,
1990 Planning Commission Meeting or at such time that matter was heard.
The presentation made, and copies provided for your files, at the January 24, 1991
Planning Commission Meeting or at such time that matter was heard.
Tentative Parcel Map 10113 retained the tiered lot sizes and Church Overlay on
the corner.
Sincerely,
David Merntt
CCZ
Porter Robinson Surveying & Engineering Co
If you treat money wel~ it will grow.
~6/16/1~9 ~8:25 8~55886711 ACCENT GRAPHICS PAGE
Susan & Jim PUgh
I~IBO! ~unn~mk
Bakm,j~/d. ~ ~331~
May24, 1999
Michael J, McCabe
Assistant Planner
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakerafield, CA 93301
Re: P99-0087
Dear Mr, McCabe,
Well here we go again. The County of Kern trying their Ioest to change our rural
Rosedale area Into a crowded, smelly, crime ridden, noisy and over developed area.
You guys Just don't get it...we moved out here to get away from all that. Why would
we want you to change the z~nlng on the referred to property. So they can pack In
famille~ like so many cattle of get more money from the state/county when the Kern
RIver Freeway starts gobbling up !and. Neither of these options are acceptable to us.
We don't want the freeway or the high density housing.
Those of us listed at the bottom of this letter go on record as apposlng this zone
cl"~nge for whatever reason.
99JUL 16 PMI2:18
BAKERSFIELD CITY CLERK
July 12, 1999
Council of the City. of Biers field
~::'~ A,"'.L~,tlN!:':z "-:.-T: ' - *- .-
' r,'FMENT
Re: General Plan Amendment i Zone Change Case P99-0087, a request to delete condition of Approval
No.7 of General Plan ,Mnendment 4-90, Segment IV, and Prezoning Case 5093, regarding miniurn
residential lot sizes; Zone change request from R-1-8,500, R-l- 10,000 and R-l- 12,000 to R-I(One
Family Dwelling-6,000 sq. Ft lot size minium) on 51.32 acres
Ladies and Gentlemen
Enough is enough. These developers get a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change then come back
later and reduce the lot size, starrig, "People are only buying the smaller lot sizes", bull. The truth is they
can make more money. on the smaller lots. bottom line. They. can make money. with the existing zoning,
but it's only became of there greed that they want to re-zone, again. If there is oily a demand for small
lots then make them prove it. Where are the statistics to back it up ? And I don't just want to here the
developer speak show me with facts.
There are places for small lots and there are places for large lots. This is not the place for small lots, to the
west lots are zoned E (1/2) RS, to the northwest lots are zoned E (1) RS, and to the north the lots are
zoned E (1)RS, (Zone map attached).
I have been looking for a house, on a 18,000 square foot lot or greater. tbr over a year now and I can show
you that the resale market is loaded with houses on lot sizes 8,500 square feet and less. Stick with the
ori~nal plan, don't lean towards the developers every time.
'You can't just look at this project alone you have to look at the whole picture. Looking at the city of
Bakersfield from a real estate stand point you will fred that the resale market is overloaded with houses on
small lots, so in reality all the developers of small lot tracts are doing is over loading an all ready saturated
housing market. To prove this point take a look at the H.U.D. listings in the paper and tell me what type of
house and lot size are found most often. One thing we all agree on in Bakersfield is that land is cheap
compared with the rest of California, so why the small lots ? The problem with the real estate market is
that now as a society we look at buying houses the same way we buy and market cars: buy new, build them
cheap, and after ten years sale them for less than what you paid for them and buy a new one.
Smcerel ,
T.J. annon
A i i ~ 8E~' NOTE 2 gEE NOTE
. '~ ~~' , ,~ : " .-./,. ,-- ~ ,,' j~/,' . . .",.,,,,.'~ .,,.,,
99JUL PHI2:18
BAKERSFIELD CITY CLERK
July 12, 1999
Council of the City. of Bakersfield
Re: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Case P99-0087, a request to delete condition of Approval
No.7 of General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment Iv', and Prezoning Case 5093, regarding miniunl
residential lot sizes; Zone change request from R-1-8,500, R-l- 10,000 and R-l- 12,000 to R-l(One
Family. Dwelling-6,000 sq. Ft lot size miniurn) on 51.32 acres
Ladies and Gentlemen
Enough is enough. These developers get a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change then come back
later and reduce the lot size, stating, "People are only buying the smaller lot sizes", ball. The truth is they
can make more money. on the smaller lots. bottom line. They. can make money. with the existing zonin~R,
but it' s only because of there greed that they want to re-zone, again. ff there is only a demand for small
lots then make them prove it. Where are the statistics to back it up ? And I don't just want to here the
developer speak, show me with facts.
There are places for small lots and there are places for large lots. This is not the place for small lots, to the
west lots are zoned E (1/2) RS, to the northwest lots are zoned E (1) RS, and to the north the lots are
zoned E (1)RS, (Zone map attached).
I have been looking for a house, on a 18,000 square foot lot or greater, lbr over a year now and I can show
you that the resale market is loaded with houses on lot sizes 8,500 square feet and less. Stick with the
original plan, don't lean towards the developers every time.
'You can't just look at this project done you have to look at the whole pictuxe. Looking at the city of
Bakersfield from a real estate stand point you will fmd that the resale market is overloaded with houses on
small lots, so in reality all the developers of small lot tracts are doing is over loading an all ready saturated
housing market. To prove this point take a look at the H.U.D. listings in the paper and tell me what type of
house and lot size are found most often. One thing we all agree on in Bakers field is that land is cheap
compared with the rest of California, so why the small lots ? The problem with the real estate market is
that now as a society we look at buying houses the same way we buy and market cars: buy new, build them
cheap, and after ten years sale them for less than what you paid for them and buy a new one.
Smcerel ,
T.J. annon
r (I) RS
AVE.
Re
RD,
gEE NOTE I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
A-! (LIMIT
~'(;/4) ( E]T~
E{I/Z) (Err;
Ol IDRIL
R9 (RESt