HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 4171ORDINANCE NO. 4 I ? I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO.
104-20 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM RH (RESIDENTIAL
HOLDING) TO R-1 (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) ON 30 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,100 FEET
SOUTH OF CHASE DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 3,000 FEET
EAST OF THE KERN CANYON ROAD-VlNELAND ROAD
INTERSECTION (FILE # 03-1165)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a
petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
generally located approximately 1,100 feet south of Chase Drive and approximately 3,000 feet
east of the Kern Canyon Road-Vineland Road intersection; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 191-03 on December 18, 2003, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code to approve R-1 zoning as delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 104-20
marked Exhibit C2 by this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations
made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make several
general and specific findings of fact which warranted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from RH to R-1 and the
Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and correct; 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, Planning Commission and this Council; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on November
28, 2003, in accordance with CEQA;
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows residential and resource
(mineral and petroleum) development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
All required public notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed.
Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined
that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the
project in accordance with CEQA.
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval shown on Exhibit C1 are included in ~.~.~.x2
the project to ameliorate impacts. ~? ~
ORIGINs!
as follows:
The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan.
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2
of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of
documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this
project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with
regard to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis"
exemption in accordance with Section 711 of the Sate of California Fish and
Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the
above-reference absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's
decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project.
The proposed 60 inch storm drain will accommodate flood flow from the hills to
the east.
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land
use zoning of that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which
property is shown on Zoning Map. No. 104-20 marked Exhibit C2
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are more specifically
described in attached Exhibit C3.
Such zone change is hereby made subject to the mitigation measures/
conditions of approval listed in attached Exhibit C1, subject to approval of
General Plan Amendment 03-1165 and Specific Plan Amendment 03-
1165.
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and
shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
ORIG)NAL
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted, by the
of Bakersfield at a regularmeeting thereofheld on
Counc,, c ty
2DD4 bythe following vote:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCiLMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNClLMEMBER.
COUNCILMEMBE~
COUNCILMEMBE~
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, (:~C
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio"~Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED FEB 25 2004
HARVEY L. HALL (
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
Exhibits:
C1 Mitigation/Conditions
C2 ZC Map
C3 Legal Description
D Environmental
S:\Dole\03-1165\CC zc Ord. DOC
3
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT C 1
MITIGATION/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Plan Amendment/Breckenridge Hills SpecifiC
Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-'1165
Planning
Planning
If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern
County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any
other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all
work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist or historian.
If cultural resources are unearthed during ground disturbance activities, all
work shall halt in the area of the find. A qualified professional
archaeologist shall be called in to evaluate the findings and make the
appropriate mitigation recommendations.
With submittal of a tentative map application, site plan review or grading
plan, whichever occurs first, a cultural resources field survey shall be
provided to the Planning Director.
Hydrology Study (Preliminary Hydrology Study for Young/Gaona GPA & ZC,
October, 2003)
To minimize the risk of flooding to the proposed development, a 60 inch
storm drain is recommended to allow drainage to pass under the site. The
subject site shall also be designed to allow flood waters to pass through
the development via streets, channels, etc. in the event that the proposed
pipeline becomes blocked. Inlet and outlet structures shall be designed to
minimize the potential fro pipeline blockage.
Public Works
1. With development on or subdivision of the site, municipal sewer service shall
be provided to the proposed development or to each lot in the subdivision.
2. A 24" sewer trunk line is available west of the site. A sewer lift station will not be
permitted.
3. Include the following with submittal of any application for a land division, lot
line adjustment, or development plan:
ORIGINAL
a. fully executed offer of dedication for Shalane Avenue to collector
standards along the south line of the section. Submit a current title
report with the offer of dedication documents.
b. a sewer study to show how municipal service will be provided
c. a circulation plan showing how access will be provided to Assessor's
Parcels 387-040-07 & 387-040-08 and how a connection can be made
through the site from Shalane Avenue to existing Earnhardt Drive.
4. This area is within the boundaries of the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan.
Development and construction shall be in conformance with the approved
Specific Plan.
5. This area is within the boundaries of the Breckenridge Planned Drainage Area
(PDA). Development and construction of drainage facilities shall be in
conformance with the approved PDA.
6. The entire area covered by this General Plan Amendment shall be included in
the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for
inclusion in the Consolidate Maintenance District with submittal of any
development plan, tentative subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application
for a lot line adjustment for any portion of this GPA area.
S:\Do[e\03-1165~itigation C1 .doc
ORIGINAL
ggl. I.-E~O 3E)NVH::D 3NOZ
EXHIBIT C3
ZONE CHANGE 03-1165
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
FOR
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
A PORTION OF THE SO~AST ¼ OF THE SOUTI~AST ¼ OF SECTION 20,
T.29S., R. 29E. M.D.M. IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SAID SECTION 20, T.29S.,
R.29E. M.D.M., EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 10 ACRES.
ALSO SHOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 387-040-07, 387-040-08 & 387-
040-09
CONTAINING 30 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
203153 GPA/ZC LEGAL
ORIGtN~i c
EXHIBIT D
EBVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
B A K E R S F I E L D
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE fS HEREBY 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,
DECEMBER 15, 2003, 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, DECEMBER 18, 2003, in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, to consider the following request:
The project to be considered: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1165. Amendment to the Land
Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan changing the land use designation
from HMR (High Medium Density Residential), OS (Open Space)and R-MP (Resoume-Mineral
Petroleum) to LR (Low Density Residential) and a zone change from R-H to R-1 (One-Family
Dwelling) or more restrictive zoning on 30 acres.
Project location: Subject site is located approximately 1,100 feet (.20 mile) south of Chase Drive
and approximately 3,000 feet (.60 mile) east of the Kern Canyon Road-Vineland Road
intersection.
The name and address of the project applicant: Michael J. Callagy
Cornerstone Engineering, Inc.
2505 "M" Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
NOTICE IS ALSO HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at the same time and place by the Planning
Commission to receive input from the public on the potential effect of this project on the environment. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 Negative 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 Richard Dole) in the Development Services building
at 1715 Chester Avenue, or by telephoning the department at (661) 326-3733, or by e-mailing the depadment at
Planninq@cLbakersfield.ca.us. Our website address is ci.bakersfield.ce.us.
If your property is rented or leased, we request that you provide your tenant(s) notice of this public hearing.
PUBUC COMMENT 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 Planninq
Deoartment. If you challenge the action taken on this proposal in court, 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: November 28, 2003
POSTED: November 28, 2003
STANLEY CTG'RADY
Planning Director
SSDole~03-1165~NOPH ND. DOC
ORIGINAL
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266
BAKERSFIELD
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
November 28, 2003
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646
TO:
Responsible or Other Interested Agency
SUBJECT:
Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative General Plan Amendment/Zone
Change 03-1165. Located approximately 1,100 feet (.20 mile) south of Chase
Drive and approximately 3,000 feet (.60 mile) east of the Kern Canyon Road°
Vineland Road intersection.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield will
be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Negative Declaration for the project identified in the
attached Initial Study. We would appreciate the views of your agency as to the scope, content
and adequacy of the environmental information which is applicable to your agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use this
Negative Declaration when considering any permits or other approvals needed for this project.
In order to review and consider your comments on this project, please send your
response no later than 20 days after receipt of this notice to the project planner, Richard Dole,
assigned to this case, at the address indicated above. In your response, please include the
name of the contact person in your agency.
Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the California Government Code, notice is
hereby given that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of
the City of Bakersfield. Said hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the
matter may be heard on MONDAY, December 15, 2003, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
The Monday portion will be for presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or
deny this project will be taken on Monday. The hearing will be continued to take testimony from
others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY,
DECEMBER 18, 2003, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California, 93301.
For more information, please call the department at (661) 326-3733.
Sinqerely,
Richard Dole
Associate Planner
RD:djl
S:\Dole\03-1165~aI.DOC
City of Bakersfield · 1 715 Chester Avenue o Bakersfield, California · 93301
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266
B A K E R S F I E L D
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646
November 28, 2003
Dear Property Owner or Other Interested Party:
Subject:
General Plan AmendmenffZone Change 03-1165
Located approximately 1,100 feet (.20 mile) south of Chase Drive and approximately
3,000 feet (.60 mile) east of the Kern Canyon Road-Vineland Road intersection.
You are being sent the attached notice because the Kern County tax records indicate you
own property in a proposed project area or within 300 feet of a proposed project (see attached map),
or you have specifically requested this notice be sent to you. The atlached notice describes the
proposed project and draft environmental document the City of Bakersfield is currently processing.
Through this notice, we are informing you of your opportunity to conunent either in favor or
against the proposed project. You should express your comments at the public hearing indicated on
the attached notice. However, if you are unable to attend this hearing, you may submit written
comments to this department or contact me by telephone prior to the hearing so that your comments
can be considered by the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Richard Dole
Principal Planner
RD:djl
S:\Dole\03- I 165\prop own Itr. doc
City of Bakersfield o 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301 ~
ORIGINAL
APPENDIX G
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 03-1165
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ! INITIAL STUDY
Environmental Checklist Form
6.
7.
8.
Project Title: General Plan AmendmenFZone Chanqe 03-1165
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield Planninq Department, 1715
Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301
Contact Person and Phone Number: Richard Dole1 661) 326-3733
Project Location: Subiect site is located approximately 1,100 feet (.20 mile) south of
Chase Ddve and approximatelv 3.000 feet (.60 milel east of the Kern Canyon Road-
Vineland Road intersection (See Exhibit 2).
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Michael J. Callaqy, Cornerstone Enqineerinq,lnc.
2505 "M' Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301
Existing General Plan Designation: HMR (Hiqh Medium Density Residentiall. OS (Open
Space1 Resource Manaqement Area) and R-MP (Resource-Mineral Petroleum)*
Existing Zoning: R-H (Residential Holdinq)*
Description of Project: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan chanqinq the land use desiqnation from HMR, OS and R-MP (Resource-Mineral
Petroleum) to LR (Low Density Residential) and a zone chanqe from R-H to R-1 (One-Family
Dwellinq) on 30 acres*
Surrounding land uses and setting: Subiect site is located alon(] the interface of the Sierra
foothills and the San Joaquin Valley floor. On-site slooe oementaaes ran(]e from
approximately 3 to 40 percent. An intermittent stream channel is located within the
SOUtheastern Portion of the subiect site. The steed SlOOeS are located alon(] both sides of the
stream channel.
The area located tO the north of the subiect site is develoDina to sinale-familv dwellinas. There
is no dev~10Pment on the subiect site. See ApPendix "G', ResPonse Sheet. Item IX, Table "1"
for surr0undinq land uses.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: N/A
*(General Plan designations and zoning district designations are shown on Exhibit "3").
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
[] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resoumes
[] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources
[] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology / Water Quality
[] Mineral Resources [] Noise
[] Public Services [] Recreation
[] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[] Air Quality
[] Geology / Soils
[] Land Use / Planning
[] Population/Housing
[] Utilities / Service Systems
[] Transportation/Traffic
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Sig tur
Printed name
Date
For
Tha,.
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
I. AESTHETICS: -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?,
No
Impact
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
[] [] [] []
d) Create a new soume of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: -- In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or []
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: -- Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
D []
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
3
ORIGINAL
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of []
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
[] [] [] []
[] [] D []
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
[] [] [] []
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
[] [] [] []
d) Inter/ere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
E] [] [] []
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
No
Impact
[]
4
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -- Would the project:
a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.57
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on []
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporation Impact Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [] []
iii) Seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction? []
iv) Landslides? []
[] [] []
[] [] []
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or properly?.
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
5
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: --
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant h~ard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[]
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
[] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
No
Impact
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII. HYDRQLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge []
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater suppties or inter/ere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
[] [] []
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
[] [] [] []
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed []
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?.
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood h~7~rd area as []
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
~ate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a lO0-year flood h~7~rd area structures []
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?.
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
No
Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Xl. NOISE: -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
No
Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Loss Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING: -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
[] [] [] []
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating []
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] []
Fire protection? [] [] [] []
Police protection? [] [] [] []
Schools? [] [] [] []
Parks? [] [] [] []
Other public facilities? [] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
XlV. RECREATION: --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
[] [] [] []
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physicat effect on
the environment?
9
ORIGINAL
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: -- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
[] [] [] []
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
[] [] [] []
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
[] [] [] []
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
[] [] [] []
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: -- Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the []
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
[] [] []
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
[] [] [] []
No
Impact
10
ORIGINAL
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
corem itments?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity []
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
[] [] [] []
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
[] [] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
11
Reference List
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution
No. 222-02 on December 11,2002, became effective on February 26, 2003.
The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) Cf 1989070302, by
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield
and County of Kern, June 26, 2002.
The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final
Environmental Impact Repot (FEIR), State clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of
Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11,2002.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid
Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991.
MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b)and 2081 permits, 1994.
Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000.
Preliminary Hydrology Study for Young/Gaona GPA & GC, East of kern Canyon Road
and South of Hwy 178: October 14, 2003.
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District: January 10, 2002 as updated.
S:~Dole\03-1165~APPENDIX G Check List.dot
12
II
APPENDIX G
Environmental Checklist Form
Response Sheet
Negative Declaration/Initial Study
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1165
AESTHETICS
The project site is located within an area having natural slopes from
approximately 3 to 40 percent. The 40 percent slopes are located along the
drainage stream located within the southeastern portion of the subject site while
the 3 percent slopes are located within the western portion of the site. The area
located to the north of the subject site is developing to single-family dwellings,
Subject site is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield
Plan as visually important or "scenic". There is no scenic vista that would be
impacted by the construction of this project. No Impact.
The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock
outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent
to a state highway which is designated as "scenic". No Impact.
There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of
the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. No Impact.
This project involves incremental growth of urban development typical of the
area. Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area
either at night or daytime as the light generated is typical of urban development.
Typical development standards as required by the zoning ordinance address the
issue of light and glare. Less Than Significant Impact.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The project does not convert 100 acres or more of any of the farmlands
designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide significance to nonagricultural uses.
See Department of Conservation Kern County Interim -Farmland 1996, sheet 2
of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential
agricultural suitability and productivity. There are currently more than 1.6 million
acres under Williamson Act Contract in Kern County (1999), the loss of less than
100 acres is clearly not a significant change to this resource (. 00625 %of the
total amount of prime farmland under contract in Kern County). State CEQA
guidelines section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres
of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or area wide
significance. No Impact.
The subject site consists of 30 acres and is zoned RH (Residential Holding).
Subject site does not meet the 100 acre criteria as shown in "item number II a
above, nor is it under Wiliiamson Act Contract. Properties zoned for residential
development have special setback requirements between residential structures
and agricultural uses or zoning (see Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Section
17.08.150). No Impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 2
There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature
that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
use. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the
development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific
nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No Impact.
III
AIR QUALITY
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District encourages
local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air
pollution from vehicles which are the largest single category of air pollution
in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality
Impacts promulgated by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District, (page 16 and section 6) list various land uses and design strategies
that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and
general plan requirements related to landscaping, sidewalks, street
improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling
building code requirements, location of commercial development in
proximity to residential development are consistent with the listed strategies.
This project is subject to the full range of local ordinances which ensure
compliance with these air quality strategies. No significant impacts are
noted or implementation of existing ordinances and rules will reduce impacts
less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact.
to
The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 24 table
44 Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10
tons/year, Nox 10 tons (Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality Impacts).
Nor is the project within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, "Project
screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide to Assessing Mitigation
and Air Quality Impacts). In addition, dust suppression measures listed as
Regulation VIII are required for all construction in the City of Bakersfield and are
regarded by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District as
sufficient mitigation to reduce PM-10 impacts to less than a significant level. No
Impact.
(NOTE: The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has determined that
the threshold for requiring an "air quality analysis "for single-family dwellings is
152 units. A total of 101 single-family dwellings are proposed for the subject site).
The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the Southern San
Joaquin Valley is in nonattainment) beyond the level of significance as defined
by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Pollution from this
project was taken into consideration in previous environmental analysis which
took into account that this area would be urban. This analysis was completed for
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
which identified the amount of urbanization and resultant air pollution which
would be generated within the general plan area. Mitigation from the Final
Environmental Impact Report was incorporated into various policies,
implementation measures and ordinances. In addition, no adverse comments
were received from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
on this project. The impact is not regarded as significant. No Impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 3
There is no evidence that this project creates any pollutant "hot spot" that would
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution receptors. The only potential
"hot spots "are located at intersections which are "severely" congested. There are
no adjacent intersections which are at a level of service "F" and therefore by
definition no significant pollutant "hot spot" impacts are identified for this
project. No Impact.
The land use proposed as a result of this project does not have the potential to
create objectionable odors. This proposal is not on the list of those land uses
generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems (for the list of projects
please see table 4-2, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). No Impact.
IV
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a)(I)(b)and Section 2081 permits
issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United State Fish and Wildlife Services and
California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the
permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay
habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to
grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level which is
less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h)of the CEQA
Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change
complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted is an enforceable
standard that meets the definition of Section 15064(h)(3). Therefore, the proposal
would not have a significant effect on the environment. Less Than Significant
Impact.
This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area
but does fall within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan area.
This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the
United States Wildlife Service mandates certain requirements that by ordinance
all development projects must comply. Compliance with the plan mitigates
biological impacts to a less than significant level. Less Than Significant Impact.
An intermittent stream (drainage stream)flows through the eastern portion of the
subject site as shown based on the United States Geological Survey topographic
sheet for the area (Oil Center Quadrangle, California-Kern 7.5 Minute Series,
Topographic). In addition, there are no typical flora or fauna associated with
wetlands on the site. There are no "Federally Protected Wetlands" identified in the project
area. No impact.
The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor
in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or along a canal
which has been identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Services as a
corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no evidence in the record
that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No Impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 4
e.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has been adopted as
policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts
within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled
by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and therefore will not be
in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. No Impact.
There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate
to biological resources, see answer to IV e above.
V
VI
CULTURALRESOURCES
a. There are no structures on the site. No Impact.
This Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be transmitted to the California
Archaeological Inventory (CIA)at California State University Bakersfield for
review of existing literature for archaeological resources for this project. Any
pertinent comments recommended by the CIA will be included as mitigation
measures. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation.
This project is not located in the Shark Tooth Mountain bone bed which is the
only unique paleontological resource identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield
area. In addition, topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence
that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No
significant impacts are noted. No Impact.
There is no evidence that the project is located within an area likely to produce
human remains in the opinion of the California State Inventory at California State
University Bakersfield. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop
until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains.
If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development,
all work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist or historian. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporation.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Bakersfield, located in the San Joaquin Valley, has been a seismically active
area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault
systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these
fault systems are the San Andreas, the Breckenridge-Kern County, the Garlock,
the Pond Poso and the White Wolf. There are numerous additional faults
suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active.
The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from
6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern Canyon)to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic
hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and earthquake induced landslides.
ORIG!N,~L
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 5
Future structures proposed on the project site will be constructed in accordance
with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent
seismic construction requirements in the United States), and will adhere to all
modem earthquake standards, including those relating to soil characteristics.
This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant.
The subject site has areas of steep slopes. These slopes, up to approximately
40 percent, may be subject to land slides, mud slides, etc. The area of steep
slopes is located along both sides of the intermittent stream channel and roughly
corresponds with the site's land use designations of OS-P and R-MP*
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan) and, 8.5/2.5and 8.4*(Breckenridge Hills
Specific Plan, Kern County). Westerly of the OS-P, R-MP, 8.5/2.5and 8.4* land
use designations, the subject site has slopes of approximately three percent.
No impact.
*Genera/Plan designations and zoning district designations are shown on
Exhibit 3).
a. ii. See answer to VI. a i.
Liquefaction potential is a combination of soil type, ground water depth
and seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three
attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the
answer to a VII i. No Impact.
a. iv. See answer to VI. a i.
The soil types prevalent on the proposed sites are listed in the Kern County
California Soil Survey for the Northwestern region. Based on the soil survey, the
project site includes Delano sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes and Delano
variant clay loam, 0 to 9 percent slopes. The characteristics of these soil types
are as follows:
1. Delano sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes -a deep well drained soil on
alluvial plains and terraces, permeability is moderately slow, available water
capacity is moderate or high, runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion
is moderate; and
2. Delano variant clay loam, 0 to 9 percent slopes -a deep well drained soil
on alluvial plains and terraces, permeability is slow, available water capacity is
high, runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate.
Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil types, implementation of the project
will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils, exhibit or expansion
problems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative
to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site
specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to
applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. No
Impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165 """
Environmental Checklist
Page 6
c. See answers to VI a i and VI a ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of
Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior
Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to
subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard. No Impact.
d. See answer to VI b.
e. See answer to VI b.
VII
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There is no evidence in the record which indicates this project (or this type of
land use in general)involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any
quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the
potential to be a significant environmental impact. No Impact
b. See answer to VII a.
There is no evidence that this project or this category of projects has been
identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous
emissions at a level which is potentially significant. No Impact.
This project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous
materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No
significant impact is anticipated. No Impact.
This project is not located within any area subject to the land use
restrictions within the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
which covers all of Kern County. No Impact.
The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private
airstrip and it is therefore presumed not to have any land use impacts at
this distance. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1993)uses this 5,000
foot distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No Impact.
The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not
inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan
(Jan. 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of
emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials
incident. The proposed project could introduce substances typical of a
residential development. However, hazardous waste facilities guidelines have
been adopted for Kern County to provide for adequate designation of hazardous
waste disposal facilities to serve the residents and the industries of Kern County
and its various incorporated cities thus, reducing the impacts to a less than
significant level. Less Than Significant Impact.
This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area
covered by the Hillside Development Ordinance (HD)which has standards
required by the Kern County Fire Department which address the issue of
wildland fires and urban development. No significant impacts are anticipated.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 7
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure
that the quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be
substantially affected· No significant impact is anticipated· No Impact·
The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion
of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not
considered significant. The water utility company serving the project area will be
contacted regarding the proposal. The appropriate water utility company
may require the project applicant to provide some water system improvements to
service the site but this impact is not regarded as significant. No Impact·
An intermittent stream channel bisects the southeastern portion of the subject
site. This stream channel is designated OS (Open Space Flood Plain) by the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (City of Bakersfield jurisdiction) and 8.5
(Resource Management) and 2.5 (Flood Hazards) by the Breckenridge Hills
Specific Plan (Kern County Specific Plan)*.
A hydrology study" was prepared for this project. The purpose of such study is to
·. ·determine the required pipe diameter to carry the intermittent stream 100
year flood waters underneath the site without posing a risk to homes lying in the
existing flood zone. "Such study recommended a 60 inch storm drain. Also, the
study shows the site will "... be designed to allow flood waters to pass through
development via streets, channels, etc...". The proposed storm drain may alter
the existing drainage patterns to a significant degree.
All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply
with an approved drainage plan (for every project)which avoids on and off site
flooding, erosion and siltation problems· The impact is not significant. No impact.
*General Plan designations and zoning district designations are shown
Exhibit "3".
"Preliminary Hydrology Study for Young/Gaona GPA & ZC.
on
d. See answer to VIII c.
e. See answer to VIII c.
f. See answer VIII a.
Applicant's General Plan AmendmentJ'Zone Change application includes a
general plan amendment from HMR, OS and R-MP to LR and a zone change
from R-H to R-I (One-Family Dwelling)on the entire 30 acre site. Public safety
from possible flood hazards requires the protection of the land areas designated
with the OS, 8.5 and 2.5 land use designations. Such protection includes
keeping the areas designated OS, 8.5 and 2.5 free from residential and
other structures which could be damaged by flood flow. Also, see answer to
VIII C. Considering the steep slope percentages, dwellings should not be ~."
allowed on these steep sloped. Less Than Significant With Mitigation ~
Incorporation. ,~,
GPA/ZC 03-1165 --
Environmental Checklist
Page 8
h. See answer to VIII g.
The proposed project is not within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area
or the 100 year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (Safety Element). No Impact,
The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is,
therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. An intermittent stream channel
bisects the southeastern portion of the subject site. Slope percentages on either
side of this channel have a range of up to approximately 40 percent. Structures
placed on the sides of these slopes could be subject to mud flows or other like
surface movements. Also, see answer to VIII C. Considering the steep slope
percentages, mitigation to maintain the existing OS and R-MP land use
designations or a covenant prohibiting structures on the slopes may be
appropriate. Less Than Significant Impact.
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project is the continuation of the existing development pattern which
does not physically divide any existing community. See Table "1". No
impact.
TABLE "1"
Land Uses and Zonin~l of Adiacent Properties
LOCATION LAND USE DESIGNATION ;~ONIN~ DISTRI(JT EXISTING LAND USE
LR*t
North 5.2''t R-l, OS*t Single-Family Subdivisions
RR, OS, ER*t
South 8.5/2.5, 8.4, R-MP ,,t R-H*t Undeveloped Land
HMR, OS, R-MP, ER*
East 8.5/2.5, 8.4''t R-H*t Undeveloped Land
HMR, LMR, OS, R-EA, CC*
West 5.3, 8.5/2.5"t R-H*t Undeveloped Land
*Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designations and zoning district designations are shown
on Exhibit "3" (City of Bakersfield Jurisdiction).
"Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan land use designations are shown on Exhibit "3" (City of Bakersfield
Jurisdiction, Kern County Plan).
t City of Bakersfield jurisdiction.
The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance.. Approval of the project will
eliminate OS and R-MP designated land*. Proposed residential land uses may be in
conflict with the following Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies.
Conservation Element
Policy No.
Policy - Mineral Resources
4
Land use decisions shale recognize the ~mportance of ~denhhed m~neralc~<
resources and need for conservation of resources identified by the Stat~'
Mining and Geology Board.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 9
5
Protect significant mineral and petroleum resource areas, including potential
sand and gravel extraction areas.
7 Promote development of compatible uses adjacent to mineral extraction areas.
11 Prohibit incompatible development in areas which have a significant potential
for harm to public health, safety and welfare due to mineral and petroleum
extraction and processing.
Policy - Soils And Agriculture
7 Land use patterns, grading and landscaping practices shall be designed to
prevent soil erosion while retaining natural watercourses when possible.
13 Minimize the alteration of natural drainage and require development plans to
include necessary construction to stabilize runoff and silt deposition through
enforcement of grading and flood protection ordinances.
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
1 Promote the establishment, maintenance and protection of the planning area's
open space resources, including the following:
a. Conservation of natural resources.
· Management of hillsides.
Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan - Kern County
The Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan designates the intermittent stream channel as
Map Code 2.5*.
2.5* Map Code Policies
Policy No. Policy
1. Kern County will not permit new development to be sited on land which is
environmentally unsound to support such development.
4. Designated flood channels should be preserved as Resource Management
(Map Code 8.5) areas and development limited within those areas.
*General Plan designations and zoning district designations are shown on
Exhibit 3).
(NOTE: Subject site is located with the boundaries of the Breckenridge Hills
Specific Plan. Such plan was adopted by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on
October 9, 1989. The subject site was annexed to the City of Bakersfield on
March 8, 1995. The City of Bakersfield never adopted the Breckenridge Hills
Specific Plan; therefore, the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan is not applicable to
the project site. Land uses allowed on this site are determined by the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan and Zoning Ordinance). Less than significant impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 10
c. See answer to V a.
X
MINERAL RESOURCES
The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area
of other important mineral resources. No Impact.
b. See answer to X a.
XI NOISE
Development of the project will not expose persons or generate noise, in
excess of those standards found in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan,
Noise Element. The impact is not regarded as significant. No Impact.
There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with
ground bourne vibration or noise. No significant impact identified. No Impact.
Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of
the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation result in
a 20 d. b. a. reduction in noise for interior space. In addition, typical
development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping
will prevent substantial increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining
area, will not expose people to severe noise levels and would reduce noise
impacts to less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact.
Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary
increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise
levels has not been found to be significant. No Impact.
This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions
of the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of Kern
County. No impact is identified. No Impact.
This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet)of any private airstrip
and therefore does not have the potential to cause significant noise impacts
(Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). No Impact.
XII POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will induce population growth in this area but this impact is
regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of
existing urban development or is an inflll project. See Table "2". No impact.
IPROPOSED LAND USE
Single-Family Residential
TABLE "2"
Population Projections
IDWELLING UNITS I PERSONS PER
HOUSEHOLD
101 3.01
POPULATION
ESTIMATE
304
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 11
The project does not propose the displacement of any existing housing. No
significant impacts are noted. No impact.
The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No significant
impact noted. No impact.
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protection?
Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided
through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County.
Projected increase of new residents and new structures into the City through the
proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to
maintain current levels of service; however, this potential increase in fire
protection services is not deemed significant. No Impact.
Police Protection?
Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon
project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1 .19 officers for
each 1,000 people in the city. Projected increase of 304 residents into the City
would necessitate the addition of less than one law enforcement officer to
maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services
generated by this development and is not deemed a significant impact. No
Impact.
Schools?
The proposed development of land uses could produce 101 housing units and
could generate approximately 65 school age children as indicated in Table "3".
This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities.
Existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce
impacts on schools to less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact.
JTYPE AND NUMBER
OF UNITS
101 Sin~lle-Famil)/Units
TABLE "3"
SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION
101x0.48=48 101x0.17=17
ITOTAL PUPILS
65
Source: 2000 Federal Census
GPA,'ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 12
Parks?
The project proposes an increase in population of within the area and would
result in an impact upon the quality and/or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities and create a need for a new parks or recreational facilities. As
indicated in Table "4", the parkland 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 acres estimated for the project is
acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee
at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park
acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures
that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. The
impact is not considered significant. No Impact.
TABLE "4"
Park Need - Proposed Project
TYPE OF
DWELLING UNIT
Single-Family
NO. DWELLING PARK FACTOR PARK ACREAGE
UNITS (DU) (ACRES/DU) NEEDED
101 9.57 .7676
XIV
XV
Other Public Facilities?
Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and
eventual buildup of this area will result in an increase in maintenance
responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not
deemed significant. No Impact.
RECREATION
a. See answer to "Parks".
b. See answer to "Parks".
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The proposed project will generate additional vehicular traffic movement as
shown in Table "5". 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 also alter the present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and goods. A traffic analysis has not been
required for this proposal. However, the impacts of the proposal shall be
reduced to a less than significant level through the City ordinance requirement
that all on-site and offsite impacts from traffic generated by this development be
mitigated. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development shall be
mitigated according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance
of building permits.
In addition, local ordinance requires all on site street improvements and a
proportional share of boundary street improvements be built by each
development. Applicant requested a waiver of a traffic study.
OR,G ....
GPNZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 13
Such request stated that the proposed project with 101 dwelling units would
generate less traffic than the maximum of 178 dwellings presently allowed on
the site. In order not to exceed the volume of traffic generated by 101 dwelling
units, the subject site will be limited to a maximum of 101 dwelling units. Less
Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation.
PROPOSED LAND
USE/ZONING
LR*
TABLE "5"
Proposed Project
Traffic Generation
NO. DWELLING I AVERAGE VEHICLE
UNITS TRIP ENDS
101 9.57
ITOTAL TRIP
ENDS
967
*Metropolitan Bakersfield Genera/Plan land use designations and zoning district esignations
are shown on Exhibit "3" (City of Bakersfield Jurisdiction).
The project must comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan which
has a level of service standard C which is higher than the Congestion
Management Plan level of service standard D. The impact is not regarded as
significant. No Impact.
The project does not propose air traffic or impact air traffic patterns. No significant
impact noted. No Impact.
All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic
engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are
no incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No significant
impact noted. No Impact.
II projects are by ordinance subject to the access requirements of the City of
Bakersfield Fire Department which includes an evaluation of adequate
emergency access. No significant impact noted. No Impact.
The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use
be provided. No significant parking impacts specific to this project have been
identified. No Impact.
The project is not anticipated to be inconsistent in any way with policies or
programs supporting alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be
required to pay transportation impacts fees which in part are used to support
mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No Impact.
XVI
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board; no potentially significant impacts have
been identified. No Impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 14
b.
The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities.
Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development, but the
impact is not considered significant. Utility companies will be contacted
regarding the proposal and such utilities may require additional mitigation from
the applicant for receiving their service. No Impact.
Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water
facilities, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing
system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant
impact. No Impact.
The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of
all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is
not considered significant. The water utility company will be contacted and the
one which provides for this area, the California Water Company has submitted a
will serve letter for this project. No significant impacts are noted. No Impact.
The City of Bakersfield is the waste water treatment provider and has indicated
there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project. No
significant impact is noted. No Impact.
The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not
need significant new or substantially, altered facilities to accommodate this
project. No significant impact is noted. No Impact.
The proiect will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to
waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. No significant impact is
Bakersfield noted. No Impact.
XVII
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Habitat Conservation Plan
and associated Section 10 (a)(I)(b)and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of
Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California State
Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require
applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat
mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to
grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level which
is less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h)of the CEQA
Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significant effect if the change
complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan as adopted is an enfomeable
standard that meets the definition of Section 15064(h)(3). Therefore, the
proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. No Impact.
GPA/ZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 15
b.
As described in the responses above, the proposal does not have impacts that
would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The
project site is currently designated for HMR, OS and R-MP
development*. Applicant proposes 101 single-family dwelling units on
the site. Under the current HMR land use designation 178 multiple-
family dwellings would be allowed on the subject site. The proposed
project would produce less vehicular traffic, emissions and noise than if
developed under the existing general plan land use designation/zoning.
No Impact.
As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact
human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact.
*Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use des/~Tnations and zoning
district designations are shown on Exhibit "2" (City of Bakersfield Jurisdiction).
GPNZC 03-1165
Environmental Checklist
Page 16
Reference List
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution
No. 222-02 on December 11,2002, became effective on February 26, 2003.
The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH)#1989070302, by
Robert Bein, William Frost &Associates (RBF Consulting)for the City of Bakersfield and
County of Kern, June 26, 2002.
The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final
Environmental Impact Repot (FEIR), State clearinghouse (SCH)# 1989070302, by
Robert Bein, William Frost &Associates (RBF Consulting)for the City of Bakersfield and
County of Kern, December 11, 2002.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas
Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991.
5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(I)(b)and 2081 permits, 1994.
6. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
7. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000.
10.
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District: January 10, 2002 as updated.
S:\Dole\03-1165'~,ppendix G Response.doc
EXHIBIT 1
MITIGATION
General Plan AmendmentJZone Change 03-1165
Planning
Planning
If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern
County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any
other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all
work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist or historian.
If cultural resources are unearthed during ground disturbance activities, all
work shall halt in the area of the find. A qualified professional
archaeologist shall be called in to evaluate the findings and make the
appropriate mitigation recommendations.
With submittal of a tentative map application, site plan review or grading
plan, whichever occurs first, a cultural resources field survey shall be
provided to the Planning Director.
Hydrology Study (Preliminary Hydrology Study for Young/Gaona GPA & ZC,
October, 2003)
To minimize the risk of flooding to the proposed development, a 60 inch
storm drain is recommended to allow drainage to pass under the site. The
subject site shall also be designed to allow flood waters to pass through
the development via streets, channels, etc. in the event that the proposed
pipeline becomes blocked. Inlet and outlet structures shall be designed to
minimize the potential fro pipeline blockage.
OR!Cq~?,L
m
r
Ill
m
z
rn
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Kern
SS,
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield;
and that on the 26th day of February , 2004 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City
Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 417~, passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 25th day of February, 2004 and
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF
THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIAPL CODE AND ZONING
MAP NO. 104-20 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM RH
(RESIDENTIAL HOLDING) TO R-1 (ONE-FAMILY
DWELLING) ON 30 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1,100 FEET SOUTH OF CHASE
DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 3.000 FEET EAST OF
THE KERN CANYON ROAD-VINELAND ROAD
INTERSECTION (FILE# 03-1165)
/s/PAMELA A. McCARTHY
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
DEPU'~City ~lerk
ORIGINAL