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