Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 68-94RESOLUTION NO. 6 8 "9 4 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DISAPPROVING SEGMENT i OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 1-94). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1994 and THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1994 on Segment I of 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-one (21) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such Segment I of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: SEGMENT I: Cuesta Engineering, agent for Bright Development, has applied to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of a change from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential, > 4 and _~ to 10 dwelling units per net acre) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential, > 7.26 and -~ to 17.42 dwelling units per net acre) on 18.76 ± acres; and WHEREAS, for the above-described Segment, 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 mitigation 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. 7-94 on March 17, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of Segment I 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, MAY 18, 1994, on the above described Segment I of the 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 public notices have been given. 2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 4. The HMR (High Medium Density Residential) development density/multiple family development density is not consistent with the planned land use and existing single family dwellings located in the project area. 5. There is sufficient acreage of undeveloped HMR (High Medium Density Residential) within the project site general area and between Stockdale Highway, Pacheco Road, Gosford Road and Buena Vista Road. 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 for Segment I is hereby approved and adopted with mitigation measures as shown on Exhibit "A". 3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council, is hereby received and accepted. 4. The City Council hereby disapproves Segment I, as shown on Exhibit "B", of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. .......... 000 .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by ~ ! 8 1~ by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED ~ [s 1991 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield RD:pjt res\r194sl.cc April 20, 1994 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Measures General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Planning Department: In order to mitigate the impacts of any development of the site on the kit fox (a Federally-listed endangered species), the applicant must follow the Advisory Notice, detailing the Interim Mitigation Measures established for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). These measures are necessary to prevent unauthorized take of foxes and to offset any losses to kit fox habitat resulting from on-going construction activities. (Mitigation) Prior to approval of any land division, an archaeological survey must be completed. Any mitigation resulting from the report shall be implemented prior to recordation of the land division. Prior to the issuance of a building permit within the project area, $3.65 per square foot of assessable spacc, as defined in Section 65995 of the Government Code, shall be paid for the purpose of providing school facilities. (Mitigation) p:194sl.ea EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94, SEGMENT I LR/PS HMR 7 TIVOLI COURT PETALO DRIVE LR SUNSET CANYON CAMINO EL CANON UR ) LR OS-P WHITE LANE LR WALNUT CREEK ~1 LR cou~r I.F,I I~1 C SINGLE ~ I OAK LR SHADOW OAK WAY LR DRIVE LR GC CIMARRON TRAILS DR. ~ LR SCALE IN FE.~I T30S, R27E 79317 Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 2 4.1 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94, SEGMENT I AND ASSOCIATED ZONE CHANGE #5544 Chairman Powers abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he represents property owners in the area. Commissioner Marino chaired this item. Staff report recommending denial was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Miriam Raub Vivian spoke representing residents in Tevis Ranch asking that this application be denied. She felt the current general plan designation is compatible with the environment of the neighborhood. This development would significantly alter their neighborhood. She urged the commission to protect the environment of the city and their neighborhood. Jim Kruse, 10008 Shadow Oak, said he had submitted a memo to staff. He felt the commission must vote in favor of preserving the neighborhood. Roy Wesson said Tevis Ranch as a group is upset about the possibility of this development. He felt if these apartments are allowed a rise in crime will be the result. He was concerned about teenagers from schools in the area hanging out in this complex. He asked that the commission deny the project, thus helping them to safeguard their neighborhood and preserve the quality of life. Jerry Marquis stated he lived in close proximity to the proposed development. He said he had sent a letter in opposition to the Planning Department which is on file. He said he strongly opposed this project because the mistake of overcrowding cannot be reversed once it is created. He was concerned about higher crime, lesser quality of life and loss of property values. Stephen Thomas stated he was a developer of Tevis Ranch. He felt if the density is allowed property values would diminish. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 3 Daniel Smart stated he was an attorney asked by several property owners to represent the neighborhood. He felt the project being proposed was not consistent with the 2010 General Plan nor the present zoning ordinance. The property owners purchased in the area taking into consideration the general planning for the area. The applicant's proposal is not consistent with nor complimentary to the existing land uses. He felt the applicant's proposal ignores the abundant pre-existing sites and the vacancy rates of existing developments. He stated their agreement with staff's findings. He asked that the application be denied. Maurice Etchechury represented the applicant. He asked for approval of this project. He said the project requires an 18-acre site so that the number of units can be constructed to allow for proposed amenities. He stated a letter was submitted to staff requesting amendment of their application so that the general plan amendment be conditioned so that the HMR designation would only be effective with a PUD zone and that the zone substantially conform to the site plan submitted and 12 conditions in the letter. He said applications are being processed on two HMR project sites that would convert the use from apartments to single family residential uses which would be within the LMR range. He said they had conducted a meeting with residents where they presented evidence, however the group was not convinced this was an appropriate project. He felt the residents in the area were trying to extend their wishes over the owner's property. He asked if apartments cannot be placed here where should they go. He said they felt this project would not be detrimental to properties in the area, saying resistance from residents makes it difficult to provide housing for low and moderate income families. He felt this project would add to the neighborhood because it is gated and has one property owner. He was concerned that most of the letters received in opposition were form letters. John Smith, General Manager, Bright Development, gave a summary of their proposal and previous projects they have developed. He said they build and manage their own complexes. This development would be a long-term asset to them. He said they have not sold a multi-family project. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Etchechury said he would like flexibility to negotiate Public Works conditions with the director, if this project is approved. Terra Martinez spoke saying she had searched long and hard for her home and chose this location because of the lack of apartments and the fact that the surrounding properties were already zoned. Regarding the comment concerning sending form letters she said she had sent one, however it stated all of her concerns. She was concerned about this project affecting the possible sale of her property, and the possibility of reduction of property values. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 4 Michael Gerrity resident of Tevis Ranch felt the issue in this situation was profit for the applicant. Ron Bickett spoke saying he is a real estate appraiser. He said higher density residential development being constructed next to single family homes diminishes the values and utility of the adjacent properties and extends marketing time required to sell adjacent properties. Mary Saunders stated her opposition. Steven Pelz felt the project is a well-designed apartment project and he would not have opposed it had the original designation for the project been HMR. However a consideration he made when purchasing his property was the fact that it was zoned LMR. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Marino stated a manual with information concerning the project had been submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave a history on this project regarding the designation at the time of adoption of the 2010 Plan. She felt this was a great project, extremely well designed, however she did not feel it belongs at this location because of its inconsistency with the general plan. The vacancy factor is substantial in this area. Commissioner Slocumb asked what evidence had been presented to excuse the applicant from submitting an EIR on this project. Mr. Hardisty responded the applicant had submitted a traffic study which indicated they would provide their share of transportation improvements required to maintain level of service C for the area. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said the proposed conditions of approval include two additional intersections alluded to by the applicant in which he would provide 3 percent share of the cost; with this he felt traffic impacts are covered. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Etchechury stated he would agree with additional conditions regarding traffic impacts. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. LaRochelie said the regional impact fee by itself does not constitute full traffic mitigation. The additional traffic study requested by staff is an attempt to cover additional mitigation necessary for regional impacts. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 5 Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said the traffic engineer must evaluate whether or not any impacts are not addressed in the fee structure and none have been identified as being directly attributable to this project on a regional basis. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Etchechury said their switching from an R-2 zone to a PUD would not affect the outcome of the traffic study or the mitigation because the only change was reshuffling of buildings within the development. Commissioner Hersh felt both sides of this issue had made good arguments, however stated he would support the residents and staff's recommendation because he felt the residents had made lifetime investments and now the developer is asking to change in the middle of the game. He felt the neighborhood would be impacted by this project and that enough R-2 zoning is available in the area. Chairman Marino said he was pleased that the applicant has offered to bring a PUD request back to the Commission. He was concerned about uses that could be instituted in the current A zone. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Etchechury said examples submitted regarding Stonegate development were 19.5 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Delgado pointed out advantages of a single development such as with this project. He said he had been persuaded by those concerned about this project. He felt there were optional construction sites for this project. Commissioner Andrew said it was his understanding the vacancy rate in this area is approximately 10 percent. He said he has owned property close to apmtments and has had no problems and has had rising appraisals, therefore did not feel apartments would bring the neighborhood down. Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said staff could not recommend rezoning to R-2 at this time. Commissioner Messner felt the Commission must decide whether this project is needed for this community, saying staff has indicated it is not. He said he did not support this project, however since he missed testimony at the beginning of the hearing he would abstain from the vote. Minutes, PC, 3/17/94 Page 6 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Slocumb to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested HMR (High Medium Density Residential) land use designation, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Delgado, Hersh, Rosenlieb, Slocumb NOES: Commissioners Andrew, Marino ABSTAINED: (Conflict of interest) Commissioner Powers ABSTAINED: Commissioner Messnet Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Slocumb to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report approving the Negative Declaration and disapproving the requested R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone, and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Delgado, Hersh, Rosenlieb, Slocumb NOES: Commissioners Andrew, Marino ABSTAINED: (Conflict of interest) Commissioner Powers ABSTAINED: Commissioner Messner *8-minute break was taken at this time. a&b '~'~ .IC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 1-94~ S~ :"~'ATED ZONE C ,HANGE #5542 Commissioner Slocumb abstmne,~ ~',~ to a c.~tvdtef f 'no ~ ter set in that his employer is providing consulting services f/~,~Iol~,.~. Commissioner .D. el .a~la~.'~.stain.ed due to a conflict of interest uu,. ", an economic arrangythe applicant's attorney. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HFJtRRy GIVEN that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of the City. of Bakersfield. The hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter. as the matter may be heard on MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1994, in the Council Chambers. 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, MARCH 17, 1994. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, to consider the following request: The projuet to b~ eausidereal: General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment I changing the Land Use Element designation lrom LMR (Low Medium Density. Residential > 4 and -< to l0 dwelling units per net acre) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential > 7.26 and < to 17.42 dwelling units per net acre) on 18.76 --+- acres. Zone Change No. 5544 changing the zoning district from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling, minimum lot area shall not be less than 6,000 square feel and the t~inimum tot area shall not be less than twenty-five hundred square teat per dwelling unit) on 18.76 acres. 2. Pr~:t Ioeafimt: South side of White Lane between Saddie Drive and Mountain View Road. 3. Tiaa name and address of the pFoject appficanC Attention: Maurice Etchechury 5055 Califomia Avenue, #218 Bakefield, CA 93309 NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that a public heuring WIll be held at the same time and place by the Planmug Conumssion to receive input from the public on the potential effect of this project on the environment. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), an Initial Study has been prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impact of the proposed project. This study has shown that the proposal (as mitigated) will not have a significant effect on the environment: therefore. a Negauve Declaration is proposed. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public through the Planning Department (contact Rlehnrd Dole) in the Development Services building at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (805) 326- 3733. PUBLIC COM_M~NT regarding the proposed project and/or adequacy. of the Negative Declaration, including requests for additional environmental review, will be accepted in writing on or before the hearing date indicated above at the Plannin~ Devartment. If you challenge the action taken on this proposal in courL you may be limited to raising only. those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Bakersfield prior to the close of the hearing. DATED: February4 1994 RD:pjt p:194sl.nph .~ PO~ED: Febrnar~v4, 1994 I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EFFECT EARTH Soils G~olog~c Hazarcls ErosioniSedimentaaon Topography WATER QualitylQuan'aty · Grounc~water - Surface Water FloodingtDrainacJe AIR Air Quality Climate/Air Movement Odors BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Plants Animals Habitat Alteration TRANSPORTATION TrafficlCirculalJon Parking Traffic HezaJ'~ts Air/1NatertRaif Systems CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological H~storlc~1 IMPACT SJ P MITIGATION EFFECT IMPACT LAND USE CompWaPility General PlaniZonincj Growth Inducement Prime Ag Lanci Loss PUBLIC SERVICES Police Fire Schools Parks/Recreation Sotid Waste Disposal Facilit~ Mamtonance UTIUTIES Storm Drainage Natural Gas Electcity Communication POPULATION HOUSING HEALTH HAZARDS NOI~E AESTHETICS LIGHT AND GLARE II NATURAL RESOURCES ENERGY USAGE (NOTE: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ABOVE IMPACTS iS ATTACHED. MITIGATION S = Significant p = Poter~ally Significant I = InsigmficantJNo Effect Y ~- Yes N = No ORD = Ordinance Requirement II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Y N Does the prolect have the poter~aJ to clecjrape the quality of the environment, suPstant3aiiy reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sust~uning levels. threaten to eliminate a plant ~mpor~ant examples of the maior per~ods of California t~istor~ or pret~istory? -- ~m~ac~s wdl enaure well ina3 ~e future. I __ Does the project have impacts which individually limited, but cumuiaavely considerable? (A f~roiect may im~ec! on ~wo or or Indlrecay? ~ l: , -- !11. FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION 3N THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION IchecK one}: !t has been found that the proposed pro~ect COULD NOT have a s~gnificant effect on the environment: therefore. a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiit be prepared. it is been found that although the proposeai project coutd have a significant effect on the environment. there wiii not De a s~gnificant effect in this case because MITIGATION MEASURES. as ~aent~ed in the Discussion of Environmental Impacts. have been mcorporated into the ~roject: therefore. a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. It has been foun,"* that the proposed project MAY have a sign~cant effect on the enwronment. ancl an EtR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) will be prepared. ~.~ APPENDIX I General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth Soils - Construction of the proposed project will result in 18.76 net acres of the mils of the Cajon Sandy Loam soil type 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 provided irrigation water is available. However due to surrounding urban uses, the site should not be considered a commercially adequate size for agriculture site. 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 an alluvial plain, which is not considered a unique geologic or physical feature. The site is currently undeveloped. The proposed project would not create an unstable earth condition or cause changes to any geologic substructure. The project will not expose people, structures, or property to major geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides or ground failure. Although no specific geologic hazards are known to occur within the boundaries of the project site, there are numerous geologic fractures in the earth's crust within the San Joaquin Valley, which is bordered by major, active fault systems. All development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Current development standards will require the project to comply with appropriate seismic design criteria from the Uniform Building Code, adequate drainage facility design, and complete preconstruction soils and grading studies. As the site is outside the Alqulst-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. Typicalordinance requirements ensure that erosion, siltation or deposition of soils from the site by water run-off will not occur through development of the project, nor through drainage of the site after construction. Wind erosion and fugitive dust may occur during the construction process: however, normal use of water spraying will control wind erosion impacts and should not be considered significant. Topography - The slope of the natural terrain on-site is flat. Project development will not result in a change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features of the area to a significant degree. Wn~r Water Qualive / QuantiW - 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 City of Bakersfield Water District; however, the cumulative impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant. Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 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 contaMs 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. Subject site is located within the Lake Isabella Dam failure inundation area. In the event of dam failure, the subject site would be inundated in approximately eight hours. 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. Air Quality - Short-term, non-significant, air pollutant impacts would be generated on and off-site during construction of the proposed land uses, including sources such as: dust from trenching, grading and vehicles; exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and construction equipment; and, emi~rsions from asphalt paving of parking lots and roadways. Although there would be short and long-term air quality impacts from mobile sources of pollutants generated by the estimated daily volume of 2,077 vehicles produced by the proposed land uses on-site (see Transportation), there will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a significant deterioration of ambient air quality through development of this project. The proposal will not violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No adverse comments were received from the Air Pollution Control District on this proposal. Climate/Air Movement - Land uses intended or allowed through the proposed project will not significantly alter air movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change in climate, either locally or regionally. Odors - Land uses proposed as a result of the proposed project do not appear to have the potential to create objectionable odors. Biological Resour. s Plants - The 18.76 net acre project site proposed for single family residential development is currently undeveloped. New plant species will be introduced as a result of ornamental landscaping. A barrier would not be created to the normal replenishment of existing plant species. Although existing species of plants on-site would be removed through urban development, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a plant community or substantially diminish or reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant. Pmimals - There were no animals observed on the site. New animal species, such as domesticated dogs and cats, will be introduced as a result of occupying the site with urban uses. A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing animal species, as the site would be completely developed. Although existing species of animals on-site would be removed through urban development, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or substantially diminish or significantly reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant. Initial Study GPA1-94, Segment I ZoneChange 5544 Page 3 Rare/Endangered Soecies - A biological survey revealed no known unique, rare or endangered animal or plan species present on-site. The proposal will not substantially affect, reduce the number, or restrict the range of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animal or plant, or their habitat. Habitat Alteration - Urban development may alter the area's habitat by introducing domesticated or fetal species of animals into the area. The project would not result in the creation of a barrier to the migration or movement of animals from the surrounding urban land. 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. Although this habitat alteration is not "significant" pursuant to CEQA, the applicant will be subject to California Department of Fish and Game environmental review fees. The applicant shall pay $1,250, plus clerk filing fees, prior to public hearing, in accordance with Section 1005, .Pubfie Resources Code. TrnnsDortafion Traffic/Circulation - The proposed project may generate additional vehicular movement, as shown in Table "I*. The project 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. The project may significantly alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. A traffic analysis has been required for the proposal. However, the impacts of the proposal shall be reduced to less than siL'nificant through the City ordinance requirement that all on*site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this development be mitigated. In addition, those regional impacts caused by this development are also required to be mitigated according to the regional traffic impact fee ordinance. TABLE I Proposed Project Traffic Generation - LAND USE ' DESIGNATION* NUMBER OF UNITS Proposed Mar. Allowed§ AVERAGE TRIP ENDS FOR PROPOSED & MAX. NUMBER OF UNITS Proposed Ma.,dmum** TOTAL TRIP ENDS FOR PROPOSED & MAX~ NUMBER OF UNITS Proposed Max. .... Existing LMR * - - 187 - - 6.59/7.16'* - - 1,232/1,339 propose~d HMR* 322"~' 326 6.37* 6.59/7.!6'* 2,077 2,148/'2,334 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual. 5~1~ Ed., 1991 Land use designations and zoning districts are shown on Table II. Source: Traffic Study for GPA and Zone Change at White Lane and Mountain Vista Drive for Brit, ht Deveiooment, 1994:8. The number 322 was determined by formula, thus establishing an average less than the standard average but well within the accepted range. TABLE II RR ER SR LR HMR HR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ~Rural Residential - 2.5 gross acres/dwelling unit) LI ( Light Industrial) (Estate Residential - 1 dwelling unit/net acre) Suburban Residential - less than or equal to 4 dwelling units/net acre) (Low Density Residential - less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units/net acre) Low Medium Density Residential - greater than 4 and less than or equa% to 10 dwelling units/net acre) (High Medium Density Residential - greater than 7.26 and less than 17.42 dwelling units/net acre) (High Density Residential - greater than 17.42 and less than or equal to 72.6 dwelling units /net acre) SI HI P PS PT P. SW OS OS-P OS-S R.IA Service Industrial) ( 11eavy Industrial) Public Facilities) ~ Public/Private School) (Public Transportation) (Solid Waste Facilitiesl (()pen Space I (Parks) (Slopes) ( Resource-Intensive Agriculture. 20 acres minimuml HC (Highway Commercial) GC (General Commercial) /Ma~or Commercial) OC (Office Commerclal) (Mixed Use Commerczal) R-EA R-MP ( Resource-Extensive Agriculture, 20 acres minimum) Resource-Mineral Petroleum, acres minimum) General Plan Street Classification Freeways provide service to through traffic exclusively with no access to abutting property and no at-grade intersections. Expressways are arterial highways with at least partial control of access which mav or may not be divided or have .grade separations at intersections and may be an interim facility for an ultimate treeway. Arterials are used primarily by through traffic, with a minimal function to provide access to abutting property. Collectors function to connect local streets with arterials and to provide access to abutting property. Locals are exclusively for property access and through traffic is discouraged. TABLE II (cont.) R-1 E R-S R-S-1A R-S-2.5A R-S-5A R-S-10A R-2 R-3 R-4 R-H PUD C-O C-1 C-2 C-C PCD ZONING DESIGNATIONS M-1 flight r~anufactur[ng) (One Famziy Dwelling - 6,000 sq.ft.ldweiling unzt) N-2 (Estate - 10,000 sq.ft./dweiiing N-3 unit) A (Residential Suburban - 24,000 sq.ft./dwelling un~.t) A-20A (Residential Suburban, one-acre P minimum lot size) RE (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre minimum lot size) Ch (Residential Suburban five-acre OS minimum lot size) HOSP, (Residential Suburban ten-acre minKmum lot size) O (Limited Multiple Family Dwellinq - 1/2,500 AD sq.ft./Swell£ng unit) FP-P (Limited Multiple Family Owellinq - 1/1,250 FP-S sq.ft./Swelling unit) (L~mited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1 /600 Tr sq.ft./dwelling unit) (Residential Hold£ng) SC (Planned Unit Development) (Professional and Administration Office) ( Neighborhood Commerc[ai) ( Reg£onai Commercial) (Commercial Center) (Planned Commercial Development) (General Manufacturing) /Heavy Industrial) (Agriculture) (Agriculture-20 acre minimum) (Automobile Parking) (Recreation) (Church) (Open Space) (Hospital) 'Architectural Design) (no longer in use) Architectural Design) Floodplain Primary) Floodplain Secondary) Airport Approach) (Travel Trailer Park) (Mobilehome) (Senior Citizen) f\zone.1 Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Page 4 Maximum DU's allowed per acre times number of acres. LMR, (10)(18.76) = 187; HMR, (17.42)(18.76) = 326. The numbers 6.59 and 7.16 are average trip ends for weekdays and Sunday (weekday/Sunday) respectively, and have been generated from traffic studies. Weekday/Sunday. A traffic study was required for this project. In a 24-hour period. a total of 2,077 vehicle trips would be generated. During the AM peak hour 145 vehicles would be generated. and during the PM peak hour 185 would be generated. Table Numbers III- VI show Level of Service for intersections and roadways affected by this project. Traffic study mitigation measures are as follows: FACILITY MITIGATION % SHARE lnt~raections Buena Vista Rd. & White Ln. Mountain Vista Dr. & White Ln. White Ln. & Park View Dr. Signalization and Widening 1.48 Signalization 2.68 Signalization 3.68 Parking - Residential development generates the need for on-site parking spaces. The city. ordinance requires two on-site parking spaces for each dwelling 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 project. Air/Water/Rail Systems - The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic. Cultural Resources Archaeological - There are no known cultural or historical located on the site. If such resources should be discovered during the construction site, all construction shall cease and the Archaeology Inventory located at California State University, Bakersfield shall be contacted to survey the site and determine the disposition of such resources. Land Use Comoatibilltv - The proposed project will include multiple-family residential types of land uses. The existing land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site include urban type uses, which are indicated in Table "III". These uses are compatible with proposed land uses. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals of the community, disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, or create a significant land use compatibility problem. Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Page 5 TABLE HI Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties LAND USE ZONING LOCATION DESIGNATION* DISTRICT* NORTH OS-P & LR R-1 SOUTH LR R-1 EAST LR & GC A & R-1 WEST LR PUD LAND USE Golf Course, undeveloped Single-family dwellings Undeveloped Single-family dwellings * Land use designations and zoning districts are shown on Table II. General Plan/Zonim, - The present land use designation on the site is "LMR", with existing zoning of "A". The proposal will amend the land use to "HMR" and the zoning of the site to "R-2"*. TI~ change will not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area, due to surrounding urban uses. 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. * Land use designations and zoning districts are shown on Table II. Growth Inducement - The proposed project will not induce substantial growth. Prime A~ricultural Land - No agricultural crops currently exist on-site. The loss of this area to urbanization was considered via the 2010 Plan FEIR (see Figure V-4). Public Services Police - Police protection for the area is currently provided by the City of Bakersfield. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project buildout. Current City Police se~dce standards require 1.32 officers for each 1,000 people in the city. Projected estimated increase of 112 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of less than one additional law enforcement officer to maintain current levels of service. 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 112 new residents and 37 new structures into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service. Schools - Proposed development of multiple-family residential land uses would produce 322 housing units and could generate approximately 158 school-age children as indicated in Table "IV". 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 mav recommend add~t~onal~ mitigation measures be added to the project. · '~- Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Page 6 TYPE AND NUMBER OF DWE~J~IG UNITS Multiple- Family Units TABLE IV School Children Generation ELEMENTARY K-8 Generated by Proposed & Max. Units Proposed Max/mum 116 117 HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL 9 - 12 PUPILS Generated by Proposed & Generated by Proposed Max. Units & Max. Units Proposed Maximum Proposed Maximum 42 42 158 159 Source: 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS. Parks / Recreation - The request results in an increase in population of 734, within the area and would result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational opportunities and create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. As indicated in Table "V~, 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 proposed project is 1.83 acres. in-lieu park fees may be paid instead of dedicating land for a park site. TABLE V Park Need - Proposed Project Type of DWELLING PARK ACREAGE Dwelling UNITS NEEDED FOR Unit Multiple-Family Proposed Maximum I Proposed Maximum 322 326 [ 1.83 1.85 Source: 1990 Federal Census: City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Solid Waste / Disoosal - 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 bo,~,( required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Page 7 Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area. Expansion of all wastewater utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not require the extension of any sewer trunk line that will serve new development. Storm Draina~te - 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 The proposed project includes 322 proposed multiple-family residential units on 18.76 net acres, with the potential for a maximum of 326 dwelling units. This site could support a maximum of 743 people (see Table "VI"). 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 VI Population Projections PROPOSED DWELLING LAND USE UNITS POPULATION Genera~d by Proposed & Maximum Units Proposed Maximum By Proposed By Maximum Multiple-Family Residential 322 326 734 743 Soums: Gruen, Gruen and Associates. Employment Densities by Type of Workplace. July 1985. 1990 Federal Census and City of Bakersfield Planning Department, May 1992. Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Page 8 Health Hazards / Public Safety No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as a result of the proposed development. The proposal does not involve a risk of explosions or releasing hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. The project will not attract people to an area and expose them to hazards found there, nor will the project interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project is not on the most current hazardous wastes and substances site list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. Noise 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 inca'eases 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. Ae~thetlea The urbaniTation of the site will alter the open space qualities of the area to a minor degree. The proposed project is not intending any uses or development in the area that would resuR in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will not have a substantial, demonstrational negative affect. 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 si~ificant 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. Ener~ Usn~e The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes, including uses of nonrenewable energy resources, during the initial and continued phases of the project. The project will not result in significant energy requirements or lack of energy efficiency by amount or fuel type of a project's life cycle. The proposal will not result in significant effects on local and regional energy supplies or on requirements for additional energy capacity or sources, nor will the project result in significant effects on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it encourage activities which result in the wasteful or substantial use of significant amounts of fuel, water, or energy. The project will not result in significant effects on projected transportation energy requirements or in the project's overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. x Initial Study GPA 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 Page 9 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 sel~-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or impact important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable or for which the incremental eflects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the efforts of past projects, then current projects, and possible future projects. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Referenee List 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendt~es, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan DE1R, The Planning Center, July, 1989. Metropolitan Balersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservatt~n Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, Interim kit fox mitigation, September 1987. Casa Loma Specific Plan, August 1986, City/County. Polo Grounds/Calloway No. 3 DEIR, September 1989, Northcutt & Assoc./Takata Assoc. Polo Grounds/Calloway No. 3 FEIR, November 1989, Northcutt & Assoc./Takata Assoc. Baker Street Corridor Specific Plan, August 1986, City. Kern River Parkway Plan DEIt~ FEIR & Technical Appendix, July & Sept. 1988, Jones & Stokes Assoc. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code. Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan Kern River Plan Element, July 1985, City/County EXI]IBIT "A" Recommended Mitigation Measures General Plan Amendment 1-94, Segment I Zone Change 5544 In order to mitigate the impacts of any natural to urban land conversion on the San Joaquin kit fox (a State and Federalby-listed Endangered Species), the applicant must, prior to ground disturbance, follow the Advisory Notice, detailing the Interim Mitigation Measures established for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. p:194sl.ai