Loading...
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