HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3922ORDINANCE NO..
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 102-
32 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 3.40 ACRES GENERALLY
LOCATED BETWEEN THE KERN RIVER CANAL, ARVIN-
EDISON CANAL AND STOCKDALE HIGHWAY FROM TO "A"
(AGRICULTURE) TO "C-O" (PROFESSIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE).
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 between the Kern River Canal, the Arvin-Edison Canal and
Stockdale Highway; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.48-96 on March 18, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended disapproval of Zone Change P98-09876 amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code changing the zoning district from "A" to "CO" as delineated on attached Zoning
Map No. 102-32 marked Exhibit "A", 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 did not warranted a negative declaration of
environmental impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from "A" to "CO" 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 Negative Declaration without mitigation was advertised and
posted on January 29, 1999, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows urban type
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. All required public notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been
followed.
The Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the proposed
Negative Declaration.
The Board of Supervisors of Kern County has recommended disapproval
of the general plan and zoning amendment.
There will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
change.
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~ff
purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Le~
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.
as follows:
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield
1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct.
2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
3. 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. 102-32
marked Exhibit "a" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are more specifically described
in attached Exhibit "b".
4. Such zone change is hereby made subject to the conditions of approval
listed in attached Exhibit 'C", subject to approval of GPA P98-0976.
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.
......... o0o .........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
~,[JG ~ 5 }99~) , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNClLMEMBER I'~ON ~
COUNClLMEMBER :¢40 1,4 [
COUNCILMEMBER ~,4 e f~l ~_
ITY CLERK and EA Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
2
APPROVEDJI, UG 2 5 ~
APPROVED as to form:
OFFICE Of THE CITY ATTORNEY
BY: ,~--/ .?~--~
CARL HERNANDEZ
Assistant City Attorney
dole:p98-0976 ordinance
August 2. 1999
EXHIBIT "A"
Maps
ZONE CHANGE
P98-0976
PROPOSED KERN RIVER FREEWAY
FP-S
/
!
'"----
STO( HWY.
J
/
/
/
/
//FP-S
C-2
J2
T29S,P,27£
T30S,
R-2
0
SCALE JN FEET
19907
CALIFORNIA STAE
UNIVERSITY ~,4KERSFIELD
R-2
600
EXHIBIT "A'
PCD
Itl
CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD
ZONING MAP 102- 32
SEC ~2
EXHIBIT "B"
Legal Description
EXHIBIT "B"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GPA P98-0976
~C pogclon o£ SecClon 32. Tovnlhip 29 SOUth, RAnge 27 WCo M.DoM., tn the
ClOy o~ aaJcerBZ~eld, COunty o~ Kern. SCBCe o~ ~llZ~a, a~ CO C~
O~c~a~ Nap cher~, des~Lbed as tollon=
8eginning ac the point of lnceFlecCion of the NOFCh l~e of
~o~ fa~d Lnc~e c~, c~a c~a~ ~e oZ S2'38'36'.
~ 5032. PI~ GS6 og 0tZLc~a~ R~ CW a~
c~8 (2) S~C~ ~ll0~'~St ~llC, ~50.~ ~eecr ~ (3) ~ 65003'42- W~c.
250.08 feecJ C~e (4) S~ch 77'07'340 Welt. ~50.57 ZeeCl
85055'2S' HelC. 1SO.al geec~ ch~e (G) S~ 09o19'21° Welt.
~ (7) S~C~ 82e24'40. Welt, 49.63 feecr ~ (8) S~U 68049'46· ~c,
49.94 ~eec: c~e (~) S~ch S6054'40· West. 47.86 reec.
~tnc o~ tnc~c~on o~ sa~d s~rly~-~ 1~ ui~ ~S~ o~
C~ 8~°05'24": gilt. 799.525 teec~ C~ ~ a~ 8~d ~y
~Lghc o~ uny l~e, S~ 8~005'~' Suc, ~,35~,73S ~eec,
~ all o11, gal ~ ot~ ~~, ~ 8~1 o~ ~1
. Wall o~er~ral s~c~es ~ p~s. ~mull~c ~~11c.
sol~d. ~id. or gasw), v~A~ are u~. tn. ~Mr or,be
c~e s~e~ p~e~7; all sale voter, ~r~s..M g~l re~m,
c~c, ~ v~cMF mecM n~ oc he~a~ceF ~. al GF~COF OF
o~hip, a~l su~ m~a~s, sa~C vac8~, b~(n-I ~g~
vht~ ~e u~n, tn, ~eF o= uy be p~ced ~ c~ e~ecc
~Lu,~ r~ghC,Co ~11 tnco ~ C~g~ c~ .~e~ p.'Gve~ co ~Lore
for ~ ~8~aZcer p~ce ~ ~c~cc ~neraAs, Bale wacom,
g~em~ Fes~rceo which My ~e p~uc~ ~a~c p~; c~ r~c co
1~, c~c~cc, erect ~ place u~ ~ ~n the i~Je~ ~,v~e~,
~cain ~ ~erace cher~ ~ thereafter tm, all ~l~s,
p~ncs. M~ne~. ~es. e~i~c, pipeline, cel~W l~noi, ele~r~c
~ l~s. ~. ~er h~es ~ ocAer s~CC~eS ~
~ efl~c o~ the r2ghcs ~cepc~ he~f~r cae ~u~ r~ghC co chat.
~!1 (~c ~oc Fefine), scoFe u~ ~ ~e~ f~ cae e~ecc p~
m~neFa~s, sa~C vaceF, bF~nes and ~che~ cee~rceoj the ~c~us~ FLgAC co
s~m~ or ase~ co use In p~,
g~eml r~ ~ ha~f~, a11 ~ to ~ 1~ ~t at a~
cite o~cor ~ ica ~eso~ ~ aHt~ s~X1 ~ ~ ~ u ~ co
ince~e~ ~X~ f~eh water s~ce.
~tai~ ~ a~tee or ice nu~ww~ or
~scrtcc~ rt~t o~ a~se co saXd ~=aXL
re~ee a~ o~ lp~ell ~ e~eH co
rights ~ hereE.~ emil not
hereco~o~ de~l~, CMO c~ ~ly be
~. p,v,ld~ f~er. OMC O~c~,
31, 1~07 in ~ 6081. Page 373 oE
EXHIBIT "C"
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Mitigation Measures/Conditions Of Approval
EXHIBIT "C"
General Plan Amendment]Zone Change P98-0976
Mitigation Measures/Conditions Of Approval
Discover of any onsite oil, gas or injection well will require immediate notification
of the Bakersfield office of the Division of Oil and Gas. The Division of Oil and
Gas may require remedial operations of such wells.
-4-
4
Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Pa.ge 12
AYES:
Tkac
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn,
NOES: None
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt
resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration approving the
requested zone change from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to CC (Commercial
Central) with revised conditions as shown on attached Exhibit "A with the
additional provisions: 1) Incorporate Steve Walker's memorandum of March 18~h,
points two and three; 2) Incorporate the March 18~h letter from the California
Historical Resource Information System as conditions one through four; and 3)
the selection of the archeologist be done in conjunction with the Native-American
Association here in town. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn,
Tkac
NOES: None
8.3a) General Plan Amendment P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooper
Combined with 8.3b below.
8.3b) Zone Chanae No. P98-0976 - Kenneth F. Cooner
Staff report given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Lorraine Unger representing the Kern Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, and
their interest is protecting the Kern River Parkway. The Kern River Parkway is
the only green belt in Bakersfield. She commented that the zone change and the
land use element to office commercial is inappropriate.
Brad Cooper, part-owner and General Manager of Cooper's Garden Center,
stated that they have been in business for 58 years, and they plan to continue to
do business for another 35 years at this location. However, they find it difficult to
compete with Home Depot, etc. Their business is the only agriculture property in
the city. They have applied for this zone change just to have the potential use of
doing something else.
Mike Neal, Vice-President for Business Administrative Services with California
State University, Bakersfield, stated that they are not in opposition to the zone
change, but they do want to make sure that the structural changes be reviewed
and approved by the University, including architectural changes, and that is part
of the restriction within the radius of the University that is built into the properties.
Public portion of the meeting closed.
Minutes, PC~ Thursday; March 18, t999 Page 13
Commissioner Boyle stated that given this property is separated from the
parkway by the canal and bike path, there is no habitat on this piece of property,
that he does not feel that the applicant's request is inappropriate, and would
support the project. He stated that he thinks there should be a view of the
parkway through the property, and the concerns of Cal. State Bakersfield can be
addressed, and instead of doing it as commemial office space zone that they
consider a PCD, where it would be a zone change meeting the needs of the
applicant for commercial development, but having it one that comes back where
there would be a public hearing as to what this site would look like.
Commissioner Brady questioned if Cai State already has the right to control or
sign off on any construction on the property to which staff responded that he has
second hand knowledge that something like that exists. Staff reported that it is
not something between the City and Cai State, and that the first time it was heard
of was when the Marketplace was being built.
Commissioner Brady inquired of Mr. Cooper if there was some covenant or
restriction on the property to which Mr. Cooper responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brady stated he would support the application as presented.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner
Ortiz, to adopt resolution recommending approval of the proposed negative
declaration recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the Land
Use Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn,
Tkac
NOES: None
Commissioner Tavorn agreed with Commissioner Boyle on the PCD issue.
Commissioner Sprague stated he doesn't see a need for a PCD because the
deed restrictions are in place, and at the site plan review the issue can be
addressed then.
Commissioner Brady stated whatever goes on the property has to be in
accordance with Cai State's wishes, and they did a nice job with the Market place
and working things out there. They are just making the zoning in accord with
use that's already been there for years, and puffing this extra burden on the
people that are using the property already is outrageous.
Commissioner Boyle stated if they approve the commercial office space, they
can build any project they want in accordance with the ordinances. The site plan
review does not have the ability to change it. The site plan review process has no
ability to say they want it to look like something else. If it meets the ordinances, it
meets the ordinances. The PCD gives them the opportunity to say could we
Minutes, PC~ Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 14
you to turn this building a little like this, or do this, because we're concerned
about traffic, or we're concerned about the view of the Kern River Parkway.
deed restriction may address Gal State's problem, but it doesn't address the
concerns that the citizens may have and the view.
The
Mr. Grady stated that if their desire is to have a PCD then their motion tonight
would not be to zone this property; it would be to deny the zone change, because
the PCD is the site plan as well as the conditions of approval. The zone change
would occur at the time as they are ready to develop the property.
Commissioner Tavorn inquired if the CC&R's go with the transfer of property, to
which staff responded in the affirmative.
A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner
Tavorn, to adopt the resolution denying recommendation of approval of the
proposed negative declaration and denying approval to propose zone change.
Motion is carried directing the property come back as a PCD by the following roil
call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Tavorn, Tkac
NOES:
Commissioners Brady, Ortiz, Sprague
Motion is carried, directing the property to come back as a PCD.
Commissioner Tavorn made a motion to move agenda items 8.9(a), 8.9(b) and
8.9(c) to the next agenda item. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion
carried.
8.9a) General Plan Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Enuineerinq
Combined with 8.9b and 8.9c below.
8.9b) Circulation Element Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Enuineerinn
Combined with 8.9a and 8.9c below.
8.9c) Zone Chanae P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Enuineeripn
Staff report given.
Public portion of the meeting was opened.
John Etcheverry stated he lives to the northerly part of this intersection, and
opposes the road change only, and has no concerns about the church or the
density. He opposes the road change due to dangerous conditions for egress
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266
BAKERSFIELD
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(805) 326-3733 Fax (~05) 327-0646
February 5, 1999
Dear Property Owner or Other Interested Party:
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 attached notice describes the proposed project and draft environmental
determination the City of Bakersfield is currently processing.
In compliance with applicable environmental and planning laws, we are informing
you of your opportunity to comment 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 they can be
considered by the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Dole
Associate Planner
RED
City of Bakersfield · 1715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266
BAKERSFIELD
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
February 5, 1999
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(805) 326.3733 Fax (805) 327-0646
TO:
SUBJECT:
Responsible or Other Interested Agency
Notice of Public Hearing and Draft Negative Declaration
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Bakersfield will be the
Lead Agency and will prepare a Negative Declaration for the project identified in the attached Initial
Study. We would appreciate the views of your agency as to the scope, content and adequacy of the
environmental information which is applicable to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection
with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use this Negative Declaration when considering any
permits or other approvals needed for this project.
In order to review and consider your comments on this project, please send your response no
later than 20 days after receipt of this notice to Richard Dole, the project planner assigned to this case.
at the address indicated above. In your response, please include the name of the contact person in your
agency.
Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the California Government Code, notice is hereby
given that a hearing accepting testimony will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of
Bakersfield. Said hearing will begin at 12:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the matter may be heard on
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1999, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Monday portion will be for
presentation of staff testimony only. No action to approve or deny this project will be taken on Monday.
The hearing will be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard on THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301.
For more information, please call the department at (805) 326-3733.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Dole
Associate Planner
RED
City of Bakersfield · 1715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS 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, March 15, 1999, 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 wiii be continued to take testimony from others at 5:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard on THURSDAY, March 18, 1999, 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 and Zone Change P98-0976. A
request to amend the Land Use Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as follows: Land Use Element amendment from Open Space to
Office Commercial on 3.40 acres; Kern River Plan Element amendment from 8.5 (Resource
Management) to 6.25 (Office Commercial) on 3.40 acres. A request to amend the zoning from
"A" (Agriculture) to "C-O" (Professional and Administrative Office) on 3.40 acres.
2. Project location: North side of Stockdale Highway, west of the Arvin-Edison Canal
3. The name and address of the project applicant:
Kenneth F. Cooper
8400 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93311
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 (605) 326-
3733.
PUBLIC 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 Plannino Department. 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: January 29, 1999
POSTED: January 29, 1999
Planning Director
RED
s:gpa-mar\0976\nph
~--
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P98-0976
OS
KERN
OS
STOCKDAL£ HVC¢.
0 600
I ' !
SCALE IN ~EE"T
19906
CAI. IFORN;,4 £TA~rE
UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD
T305, R27E
GPA P98-0976
KERN RIVER ELEMENT
PROPOSED KERN RIVER FREEWAY
: .... ,¢~oss wtt~' c.~
UNIVER$11Y
SC~E
990:5
33
ZONE CHANGE
P98-0976
PROPOSE[:) KERN RIVER FREEWAY ~.'-'""~-2 //./'/A //' /
-----------~ ---" ~// ~l
---_ -oX
TOC~DALE H~, ' ' ; - - '-'
CAUFOR'NI,4
UNIVERSITY ~,4KERSFI£LD
R-1
R-2
0
SCAI.~ IN FEET
19907
C
R-2
I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
E~'t:CT : IMPACT .... Mmc.,ATIOI~ ..i: ~::' /M/~AC'/~:'"' M~.?::I
Cli~r ~ t ~ ~ ~S I· :::~::: ~ .... ::~";~:"~;'~-:"*::
(NOTE DISCUSSION REGN~DING THE ABOVE IMPACT~ IS ATI'ACHED.'
$. $ign~icant ~ ,= Pot~Jly $ignffica~ I = i~n~ir.,an~No E{a~ct Y =. Ye~ N - No ORD = Ordinance F~
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Y N
IlL F~NDING5 OF DETERMINATION
(Pm~ec~ wnem· Ne.~nuve Occtaratmn or EIR has not 0een prevmuslv prep~e~ or w~ · prevmm d-'--,---.., wix ~
ON TI~ BASIS OF 'I'HI~ ~rrf_.~L EVALUATION (check one):
It Itu been iound that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
envm)nment: therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has been found that althou~ the pwposed project could have a s/~ificunt effect on the
env/mnment, there will not be a sign/flcant effect in t/tis case becnuse MITIGATION
MEAS~ as/dent/fled/n the D;~'~,-~on of Env/ronmental [rr~. acts. have been incorporated
into the plX~Ject: there/ore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
It has been found that the proposed project MAY have a si?if~cant effect on the enV~Onmeut,
and aa EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) will be prepared.
PREPARED BY: ~
~d
INITIAL STUDY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P98-0976
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT:
Kenneth F. Cooper
8400 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93311
LOCATION: North side of Stockdale Highway, west of the Arvin-Edison Canal and west of
Gosford Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P98-0976. A request to amend the Land Use
Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as
follows: Land Use Element amendment from Open Space to Office Commercial on 3.40 acres;
Kern River Plan Element amendment from 8.5 (Resource Management) to 6.25 (Office
Commercial) on 3.40 acres. A request to amend the zoning from "A" (Agriculture) to "C-O"
(Professional and Administrative Office) on 3.40 acres.
BACKGROUND
Subject site has both Land Use Element and Kern River Plan Element land use designations.
Of these two "elements", the Kern River Plan Element has the most restrictive land use
development policies. These policies are for the purpose of conserving and preserving the Kern
River corddor environment including but not limited to primary and secondary flood plains,
wildlife, natural resources, riparian growth, and parks and recreation. The Kern River Plan
Element boundaries extends along both sides of the Kern River from the mouth of the Kern
Canyon on the east to Interstate-5 on the west a distance of approximately 35 miles. The Kern
River Plan Element is available for review in the office of the Planning Department.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
Subject site is 3.4 acres in size and has an extreme linear configuration of approximately 2,000
feet in length and a maximum width of approximately 300 feet. The widest portion of the site is
located along the eastern portion of the parcel, and the western portion of the parcel is acute.
Located along the north side of the subject site is a bike path and the Kern River Canal with a
width of 100 feet which separates the site from the Kern River environs. Along the east side of
the subject site is the Arvin-Edison Canal, also 100 feet in width, separating the site from a
shopping center.
On site land uses include a plant nursery with indoor and outdoor plants and landscaping
materials and a parking lot. Both nursery and parking lot are located on approximately the
eastern one-fourth of the site. The remaining portion of the site, with one exception, is
undeveloped. Surrounding land uses are shown on Table I. The exception is a bike path
connecting Stockdale Highway and the bike path located along the north side of the Kern River
Canal. This bikeway allows access from California State University to the bike path located
along said canal.
Initial Study
GPA/ZCP98-0976
Page 2
TABLE I
DESIGNATIONS, ZONING, LAND USE
LAND USE
LOCATION Land Use Kern River Circulation Zoning Existing Land Use
Element Plan Element Element District*
Designation* Designation* Designation*
NORTH OS 8.5/2.5 N/A A, FP-S Kern River Canal,
Bike Path, Kern River
SOUTH PS N/A Arterial R-1 Stockdale Highway,
California State
University,
Bakersfield
EAST GC N/A N/A C-2-D Arvin-Edison Canal,
Shopping Center
WEST OC 6.25 N/A C-O Undeveloped, Bike
Path and Canal
Bridge
* See Attachment "A" for definitions of designations and zoning districts.
RED
s:gpa-mar~0976-is
APPENDIX I
General Plan Amendment/ZC P98-0976
Earth
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Soils - Construction of the proposed project will result in 3.40 acres of the soils of the Waaco sandy
loam to be insignificantly disrupted, compacted, displaced, overcovered and uncovered by grading,
filling, trenching, installation of drainage facilities, and other ground preparation activities necessary
for urban site development. If irrigation water is available, these soils are considered "pdme" for
agricultural purposes by the State Department of Conservation. Standard ordinance compliance
includes the requirement for soils and grading reports prior to issuance of building permits and
adherence to applicable building codes.
Gecloaic Hazards - Geology of the site consists of an alluvial plain, which is not considered a unique
geologic or physical feature. The proposed project would not create an unstable earth condition or
cause changes to any geologic substructure. The prOject will not expose people, structures, or
property to major geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides or ground failure.
Although no specific geologic hazards are known to occur within the boundaries of the project site,
there are numerous geologic fractures in the earth's crust within the San Joaduin Valley, which is
bordered by major, active fault systems. All development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area
is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Current development standards will require the project to
comply with appropriate seismic design criteda from the Uniform Building Code, adequate drainage
facility design, and complete preconstruction soils and grading studies. As the site is outside the
Alquist-Priolo Seismic Zones, no special seismic studies would be required for this site pdor to
building structures for human occupancy.
E i n / dimen ' n - The Kern River Canal is located atong the north side of the subject site,
and the Arvin-Edison Canal is located along the site's east side. The Kern River, at its nearest point,
is located approximately 800 feet north of the Kern River Canal with the area between the river and
canal being the Kern River riparian area.
The location of the Kern River Canal wold prevent water runoff from being directty disposed of in the
Kern River. Any disposal of runoff water into either the Kern River Canal or the Arvin-Edison Canal
requires approval of the agencies having governing authority over either of the canals.
Typical ordinance requirements ensure that erosion, siltation or deposition of soils from the site by
water run-off wilt not occur through development of the prOject, nor through drainage of the site after
construction. Wind erosion and fugitive dust may occur during any construction process; however,
normal use of water spraying will control wind erosion impacts and should not be considered
significant.
TODOOraDhv - The slope of the natural terrain on-site is fiat. Project development will not result in a
change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features of the area to a significant degree.
Appendix I
GPNZC P98-0976
Page 2
Water
Water Quality / Quantity -
Groundwater - The prOject will not alter the direction or rate of flow, or substantially deplete the
quantity of groundwater resources, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. The project will not contaminate a public water
supply, substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially degrade water quality.
Water service would be provided for the development by the City of Bakersfield. The cumulative
impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant.
Surface Water - The project will not result in discharge into any surface water, alter surface water
quality to a significant degree, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity.
The proposal will not contaminate any public water supply. Subject site is located adjacent to the
Kern River Canal and the Arvin Edison Canal (See river and canal discussion under Erosion /
Sedimentation above), The proposal will not result in changes in currents or the course or direction
of surface water movements.
Flooding/Drainage - The project will not result in changes to the course or direction of fresh water
currents, or result in changes to the amount of surface water, as the site does not contain, nor will
the proposal impact, any rivers, streams or canals (See dyer and canal discussion under ~
Sedimentation above). FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) map shows that approximately the east
one-half of the site is located within "Zone B" ("Areas between limits of 100-year flood and 500 year
flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one (1) foot or
where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from
the base flood."). Subject site is also to flooding in the event of Lake Isabella Dam failure. Estimated
time of flooding, for this area, from Lake Isabella Dam failure is six hours.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff will
change upon development of the subject site. Current development standards require the project
to comply with adequate drainage facility design, complete preconstruction soils and grading studies,
and compliance with the City Public Works or Building Departments.
Air Quality - There,will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a
substantial deterioration of ambient air quality through development of this project. The proposal will
not violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Short-term, non-significant, air pollutant impacts would be generated on and off-site during any
construction on the site, including sources such as: dust from trenching, grading and vehicles;
exhaust emissions from motor vehicles and construction equipment; and, emissions from asphalt
paving of parking lots and roadways. Although there would be short and long-term air duality impacts
from mobile sources of pollutants generated by the estimated daily volume of 40 tdps generated
dudng P.M. peak hour, there will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there
be a significant deterioration of ambient air quality through development of this site.
C imate/Air Movement - Land uses intended or allowed through the proposed project wi not,
s~gnlficantly alter a~r movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change m climate, e~
ocally or regionally. ~
Appendix I
GPA/ZC P98-0976
Page 3
Odors - Land uses allowed in the "OC" and "6.25" land use designations and the C-O zoning district
do not appear to have the potential to create objectionable odors.
Bi i al R so r
Plants - The 3.40 acre project site is approximately 25% develobed. Flora on the developed portion
consists of more or less permanent ornamental landscaping (shrubs, grasses, trees). Also on the
developed portion of the site are nonpermanent ornamental landscaping flora and supplies which
are for sate. The undeveloped portion of the site contains very little, if any flora. New plant species
will be introduced as a result of developing the undeveloped portion of the site. A barrier would not
be created to the normal replenishment of existing plant species, as the site would be completely
developed. Although existing species of plants on-site would be removed through urban
development, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a plant community or substantially diminish or
reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of development are not deemed significant.
Animals - Except for a few birds, other animals were not observed on the site. Due to the site being
relatively isolated from the Kern River environs by the Kern River Canal and bike pate (100 foot
width) a barder would not be created which would block the normal replenishment of existing animal
species. The proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or substantially diminish or
significantly reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant.
R n i - Permits and approvals for development associated with this project will
be subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated
10(a)(1)(B) and 2081 permits issued to the City by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State
Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for development
projects to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens and notify agencies pdor to
grading. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan may be reviewed at the following
location: City of Bakersfield, Planning Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield,
CA, 93301, (805) 326-3733.
Habitat Alteration - Urban development may alter the area's habitat by introducing domesticated or
feral species of animals into the area. The project would not result in the creation of a barder to the
migration or movement of animals from the surrounding land. These impacts to wildlife habitat are
considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan (MBHCP), and are not considered significant for the project proposed.
The proposed project is not "significant" per CEQA, and a Certificate of Fee Exemption has been
made with the California Department of Fish and Game. The project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code. See attached De Minimis Impact Findings.
Transportation
Traffic/Circulation - The City traffic engineer has determined that the project would generate 40 trips
during the P.M. peak hour. The proposal will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and will not
substantially impact existing transportation systems. The project will not significantly alter present
patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. Generation of 40 trips during the P.M.
peak hour based upon 12. peak hour trips from the existing business and 28 peak hour trips from
future office development. The City traffic engineer's determination is attached as Attachment
Appendixl
GPA/ZC P98-0976
Page 4
Any ~mpacts of the proposal shall be reduced to less than significant through the City ordinance
requirement that all on-site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this development be
mitigated. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated according to the
regional traffic impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits.
Parkino - Existing parking facilities will not be affected, nor will there be a demand for new parking
through the existing proposal. Future development will determined the number of parking spaces.
Any parking impacts will be reduced to less than significant through the parking ordinance
requirement that which specifies the number of parking spaces to be provided for each type of land
use.
~ - There would be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed project.
AirA, Vater/Rail Systems - The prOject will not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
Cultural Resources
A~haeolooical/Histodcal - It is not known if archaeological or historical resources are located on the
site. This initial Study will be transmitted to the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) housed at
California State University Bakersfield for their review, comments and recommendations. All
measures indicated by the AIC will be completed pdor to any ground disturbance.
Land Use
Comcatibilitv - The proposal will allow commercial and administrative offices to be constructed on
the subject site. The existing land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site include
California State University Bakersfield, shopping center, canals and the Kern River which are
indicated in Table "1". These uses are compatible with land uses allowed in the "C-O" zoning district.
The proposed project will not conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals of the community,
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, or create a significant land
use compatibility problem.
Gel~eral Plan/Zonino -The present land use designations on the site are "OS" (Land Use Element)
and "8.5" (Kern River Plan Element), with existing zoning of "A". The proposal will amend the land
use to "OC" (Land Use Element) and "6.25" (Kern River Plan Element), and the zoning of the site to
"C-O.. The proposal is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan policies and
implementation measures and will not significantly conflict with established recreational, educational,
religious or scientific uses of the area.
Growth Inducement - The proposed project will not induce substantial growth.
Pdme Aodcultural Land - No agricultural crops currently exist on site. Removal of 3.40 acres of land
through the proposal project will not convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair
the agricultural productivity of adjacent pdme agricultural land (See "Soils" under E~rth )
Public Services
Police -Police protection for the area is currently provided by the City of Bakersfield. The proposal
will not affect City Police protection in the area.
Fir~ -Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joi!~T~re
prctectJon agreement between the City and County. The proposal will not affect City fire servi'.,t~ for
the area.
Appendix I
GPNZC P98-0976
Page 5
School8 - The proposed project would not impact school facilities to a significant degree· Dwelling
units will not be constructed.
Existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues should reduce impacts on schools
to less than significant. Project review by appropriate elementary and high school districts may,
however, identify significant impacts to school facilities through this project, and may recommend
additional mitigation measures be added to the project.
Parks / Recreation - The project proposes no increase in population for the areas and would not
result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or create a
substantial need for new parks or recreational facilities.
· Wa / Di I - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or
substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The development will not breach
published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or lifter control.
Facility Maintenance - Street or other public facility improvements from the proposed development
and eventual buildup of the area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City
of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant.
Utilities
Water - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or
substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area, Expansion of all water utilities would be
required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility companies
will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant for
receiving their service.
Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area. Expansion of all wastewater utilities
would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. The
proposed project will not require the extension of any sewer trunk line that will serve new
development. All utility companies will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require
additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
Storm Drainaae - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems in the area. Expansion of all storm drain
utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant·
Natural Gas - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area. Expansion of all natural gas utilities would
be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility
companies will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the
applicant for receiving their service.
Electricity - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems
or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area. Expansion of all electdc utilities would be
required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All utility companies
will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant for
receiving their service. ~ ,
Appendix I
GPNZC P98-0976
Page 6
Communi~;ations - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area. Expansion of all
communication systems would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not
considered significant. All utility companies will be contacted regarding the proposal and may require
additional mitigation from the applicant for receiving their service.
PoDulation I EmDIovment / Housino
The proposed project will not induce a substantial concentration or displacement of people, or
significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the
area, or affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing.
The proposed project could create 26,000 square feet of office floor space (Attachment "B"). The
proposal may impact, in a beneficial way, the temporary and permanent income distribution,
employment and/or tax revenues of the City of Bakersfield or County of Kern. The project will not,
however, result in significant reduced employment opportunities for Iow and moderate income socio-
economic groups or impact the social affiliation or interaction of the neighborhood. There will not be
a significant impact on the privacy of surrounding areas.
Health Hazards I Public Safety
No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as
a result of the proposal. The proposal does not involve a risk of explosions or releasing hazardous
substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an
accident or upset conditions. The project will not attract people to an area and expose them to
hazards found there, nor will the project interfere with emergency response plans or emergency
evacuation plans. The project is not on the most current hazardous wastes and substances site list
pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
Noise
Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Typical
development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will prevent substantial
increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining area, will not expose people to severe noise
levels, and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant.
Aesthetics
The urbanization of the site will alter the open space qualities of the area to a minor degree. The
proposed project is not intending any uses or development in the area that would result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will not have a substantial,
demonstrational negative affect.
Liaht and Glare
Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities surrounding the proposed
development and anticipated vehicle traffic. Site plan review of the proposed development will
evaluate building location, matedal selection, lighting design, parking and signage placement to
buffer proposed light impacts from surrounding developments. Proposed uses should not caus~e[~
significant light or glare to existing or future development surrounding the site. ~'
Appendix I
GPNZC P98-0976
Page 7
Natural Resources
No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the
proposed project.
Enerav Usaae
The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes,
including uses of nonrenewable energy resoumes, dudng the initial and continued phases of the
project. The project will not result in significant energy requirements or lack of energy efficiency by
amount or fuel type of a project's life cycle. The proposal will not result in significant effects on local
and regional energy supplies or on requirements for additional energy capacity or sources, nor will
the project result in significant effects on peak and base pedod demands for electricity and other
forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it encourage
activities which result in the wasteful or substantial use of significant amounts of fuel, water, or
energy. The project will not result in significant effects on projected transportation energy
requirements or in the project's overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
I1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The prOject does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or impact important examples of the major periods
of California history or pre-history.
The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable or
for which the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the efforts of past projects, then current projects, and possible future projects.
The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Reference List
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
s:gpa-mar\O976~ai
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern
COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan DEIR, The Planning Center, July, 1989.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of
Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989,
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)(1)(B) and
2081 permits, 1994.
Kern River Parkway Plan DEIR, FEIR & Technical Appendix, June & Sept. 1988, Jones & Stokes
ASSOC.
Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Kern River Plan Element, July 1985, City/County
ATTACHMENT A
KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT
NON-JURISDICTIONAL LAND
1.1 State and Federal Land
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT OVERLAYS
2.1 Seismic Hazard
2.5 Flood Hazard
PUBLIC FACILITIES
3.1 Public and Private Recreation Areas
3.3 Other Facilities
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREAS
4.3 Specific Plan Required
RESIDENTIAL
5.2 Maximum 16 units per net acre
5.3 Maximum 10 units per net acre
5.35 Maximum 7.25 units per net acre
5.4 Maximum 4 units per net acre
5.5 Maximum 1 unit per net acre
5.6 Minimum 2.5 gross acres per unit
5.7 Minimum 5.0 gross acres per unit
5.8 Minimum 20 (~ross acres per unit
LAND USE LEGEND
COMMERCIAL
6.1 Major Commercial
6.2 General Commercial - 6.25 Office
Commercial (City Only)
6.3 Highway Commercial
INDUS TRIAL
7.1 Light Industrial
7.2 Service Industrial
7.3 Heavy Industrial
RESOURCE
8.1 Intensive Agriculture
8.2 Resource Reserve
8.4 Mineral and Petroleum
8.5 Resource Management
p:krpe-lul
ATTACHMENT A
RR
ER
Him
HR
HC
MC
OC
MUC
GENERAL PLAN OESZGNATZON$
aural ReszOen~;al - 2.5 gross
acres/eweZ.~tng un~)
~Suburoan AeszOen~[al - less Than
or eaua[ ~o 40we[~.~ng un[Ts/net
acre)
un[ts/net acre~
equal =o 10 dwe[/.in~ un[Ts/net
greater ~nan 7.26 anU las8 cnan
17.42 Qwel.Ltng un~tslnet acre)
[High Density ReeldenZial -
greater ~an 17.42 anQ Less t~an
or equal to 72.6 dweJ. Ling un[ts
/ne~ acre)
(HigHway
{Major ¢omeerc~a~)
iOffice Commercial)
Uae Comaerc~al)
LI ~ Ugh[
with no -,-'~' m ab-t~-~ property, and no aL.w~de
W- .~ve~aweys are arterial higJml.VS with at l~.st partmi
conuut of ,'"'--" which may or may not be d~vided or
have grade sepmtima et mmT-e~__ ~o--, and may. t~ an
interim (,,~, .W for an uJLtima,,, freeway.
traffic, ruth a minh~ ~m~ctiou to provide
for p~p~ny acc~ and
ATTA~T A
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING DESIGNATIONS
R-1 /One Family Dwelling - 6,000 sq.ft./dwelting umt)
E I Estate - 10,000 sq.~./dwelling umtl
R-S (Residential Suburl:}an - 24,000 sq.lL/dwelling umt)
R-S-IA IResidential Suburban. one-acre mimmum lot size)
R-S-2.SA (Residential Suburban-2-1/2 acre minimum lot
size}
R-S-SA (Resulemial Suburban five-acre minimum lot size)
RoSolOA ~Residential Suburban ten-acre minimum lot size)
R-2 ~ Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - t,'2.500
sq. IL/dwelling umt)
R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/1.250
sq. fL/dwelling mt)
R4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 1/600
sq.ft./dwelling unit)
R-H (Resi~ntial Holding)
PUD (Planned Unit Development)
C-O (Professional and Aaministration Office)
C-1 (Nei~borhood Commercial)
C-2 I Regional Commercial)
C-C cCommercial Center}
PCD (Planned Commercial Development)
M-I (Light Manutacmrmg)
M-2 (General Manufacturing~
M-3 (Heavy Industrial)
A (Agriculmre~
A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum)
P (Automobile Parking)
RE (Recreatiom
Ch (Church)
OS (Open Spacel
HOSP. (Hospilall
D (Architectural Design) (no longer in use)
AD (Architectural Design)
FP-P (Floodplain Primary)
FP-S (Hoodplain Secondary)
AA (Airport Approach)
TI' (Travel Trailer Park)
MH (Mobilehome~
$C ~Seinor Citizenl
t~zone. 1
ATTACHMENT "B"
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE:
November 25, 1998
TO:
FROM:
Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner
Stephen L. Walker, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed General plan Amendment and Zone Change application for Cooper's
Nursery Site
Yesterday we were contacted by Mr. Ken Cooper and Mr. Brad Cooper of Cooper's Nursery.
They are considering applying for a GPA and Zone Change to Office Commercial use for their
site on Stockdale Highway just north of Cal State Bakersfield. They had obtained information
from your office about the process, which includes contacting us to determine if a traffic study
is required.
We estimated the existing nursery site produces approximately 12 PM peak trips based on the size
of the swre area. The overall site is 3.4 acres and they indicate useable area is 2 acres, based
upon the unusual geometry of the site. It is a long, narrow strip bounded by Stockdale Highway
and two canals. Assuming 30% coverage, on a 2 acre site, yields an office building floor area of
26,000 square feet. Assuming a one swry building yields approximately we estimate the office
will produce 40 PM peak trips.
The 40 total peak trips is below our threshold for a study, not even taking into account the net
new trips which is 28. With 28 net new trips a traffic study makes it even farther below the
threshold. In light of this we do not feel a traffic study should be required. If the final scope of
the pwject differs significantly from our assumptions or you determine the scope for your analysis
is different we may need to re-visk this issue. Otherwise, no study is necessary.
CC:
PW Memo Files
Traffic Engineering File
Ken Cooper (FAX)
Mahan Shaw, Sulxlivisions
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P98-0976
LR I OS-P I
PROPOSED KERN RIVER FREEWAY
· ~ROSS VALLEY CANAL
OS
OS
OC
STOCKDALE HWY.
~~~f(' t29S,r27£
0
SCALE IN FEET
lgg06
51
T305, R27£~
GPA P98-0976
KERN RIVER ELEMENT
PROPOSED KERN RIVER FREEWAY //
~ -- ...~CROSS VALLEY CANAL-- ~ f
.....................
-~./--....... -
STOCKDALE H~. ~ " ~// $2
T29S,R27[
CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD
0 600
I [
SCALE IN FEET
19905
T505, R27E
~ C
ZONE CHANGE
P98-0976
PROPOSED KERN RIVER FREEWAY
Rl l
CROSS VALLEY CAI~L
KERN RI VER
FP-P
C-O '-~ A
STOCKDALE H~.
/
/
//FP-S
C-2
~2
T29S,R27[
T30S, R27E
R-2
0
SCALE IN FEET
19907
CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIV£RSITY BAKERSFIELD
Ri2
~oo
C
C
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TED JAMES, AICP, Director
2700 "M' STREET, SUITE ~00
March 30. ] 9t)9
· ESO URCE MA NA GEMENT A GEN(.
DA VID PRICE 111, RMA DIRECT(
engineering & Survey Sen/ices Deoar~rm
FII, E: 300-00 3 142;
IVlap #102 (32)
Kern River Plan Element
Tt~ BOA1UD OF SUPERVISORS
Kern River Plan Element, located north of Stockdale Highway, ;vest of Coffee Road and the
Arvin-Edison Canal, withiu the City of Bakersfiehl - 3.40 Acres
FUNDING: No Fiscal Impact
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
The purpose of this letter is to apprise file Board of Superx~sors of the Planning Commission's recommendation
on a proposed General Plan Amendment and zone cllange project within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Bakersfield (City) and within the City/County jointly adopted Kern River Plan Element (KRPE).
The KKPE is an Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (2010 Plan). Pursuant to tile
provisions of the KRPE, the City is requesting that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor5 make
a recommendation to approve or deny the aforementioned request. The jointly prepared KRPE requires the
City Planning Commissioo and City Council to consider the County's recommendation when conducting
hearings on proposed amendments to tile KRPE. Tlfis procedure for obtaining the recommendation of the
Board of Supervisors when processmg proposed amendments is intended to maintain the int~g'ity of'the KRPE
as a single product of the txvo jurisdictions. The City is presently considenng a project which consists of a
General Plan An~endment m~ct a zone change on a 3 40-acre sire. The City has prepared a Negative Declaration
for the project
The subject 3 40-acre stte is generally bounded by Stockdale Hi~lway on file south, the Kem River Canal on
the north and west, and the Arvin-Edison Caual on the east. Site development includes a plant nursery
(Cooper's Norsery) and related parking area on dm eastern I/4 of the parcel 'D~e remainder of the site is
undeveloped, x~fith the ex'ception ora bike path connecting Stockdale Highway and the bike path located along
the norfll side of the Kern River Canal. The site is designated Map Code 8.5 (Resource Management) by the
KRPE and is zoned A CExclusive Agriculture). The applicant proposes to amend the site desi~mqation from Map
Code 85 to 6.25 (Office Commercial) and to rezone the site from A to C-O (Professional and Administrative
Office) (City zoning).
On Februaq,' 16. I et)t), the Kern County Planning Department solicited conunents from two citizens gj-oops
(Kern River Access Committee and Kern River Parkway Fotmdation) who requested notification in the event
of a request to amenci the I-:RPE. No comments have been received.
The prnnm3 focus of the I-(RPE is the preservation of the pr/mary floodway of the Kern River. The KRPE
also focnses on the area x~qthin the secondary floodway, as this is the area most likely to experience pressores
for development which n ~oD~t co ~fl ct w t ~ ot ~er londevelopment-onented uses of~e Kern River. Accugage,
to the Imuat Study pr~nr~ by the C~tv of Bakersfield PI~mng D~a~t, the F[~4 (Flood Bsura~ Rate
March 30, 1999
Page 2
Map) map shows duat appro,'dmately the east one-hail of the site is located wiflm~ Zoae B. These areas allow
for development subject to any necessary flood proofing.
There arc several policies m both the KRPE and die 2010 Plan wi'dd~ discourage conm~ercial designation of
file subject property. The KRPE contains a specific commercial policy that specifies that conm~ercial areas
should be compact rather than stretd~ed along major arterials suclu as Stockdale Highway (Commercial Policy
6). There curreautly exists office commercidi (Map Code 6.25) designated property to the west of the project
site along Stockdale Highway as well as the conunercially designated Town and Cotmtry Shopping Center to
the east of the proposed project site.
The 2010 Plma commercial siting polices also discourage the designation of new strip conunercial designations
by specafying that new couuncrcial designations be separated by at least V2 imle (Conmaercial Policy 19), and
the policies also encourage thc clustenng of conunercial developmmt in compact areas rather than extended
along streets mad highways (Commercial Policy 22). The requested ameaadment does not meet the inteaat of the
aforementioned policies. If file City of Bakersfield were to approve the amendmmt proposal, the resulting
conmlercial designation would create a continuous strip of relatively shallow-depth conunercial property on
the north side of Stockdale Highway from the Term and ComanSr Shopping Center at Coffee Road west to
Buem Vista Road.
On Ma,'ch I I, 1999, the Kern County Plamm~g Coomussio,~ held a public heating regarding this proposal.
Afl. er considering a Staff recommendation and public mst/mony, the Plmming Conmussion reconunea~ds that
your Board advise file Bakersfield Planmng Coounission nnd City Coullcil to disapprove General Plan
flanendinent and Zone Change P98-0976. This is because the KRPE and 2010 Plan conm~ercial siting policies
discourage the establishmea~t of strip commercial patterns along streets.
Since the Coualty is not the Lead Agency for this project and does ilot have jurisdiction by law as defined in
the CEQA Guidelines, a Board action to forward a rcconunendation on the proposed project to the City of
Bakersfield rcqmres lie formal CEQA action.
1T IS RECOIViIVlENDED flint file Board of Supm~sors aufllorizc due Plaruung Director to forward a letter to
flue City of Bakersfield w~th a recomnmndation that the City disapprove General Plan Aanendment and Zone
Change P98-0976.
Very truly yours.
TED J(AMI~, AICP, Director
Plamun'g'-D'ep a rtmea~t
TJ:JS:jb
h:\j vb\board.ltrkkrp e.b30
cc: Kern River Access Committee/Attention Thomas Fallgatter
Kern River Park \Vay Foundation/Atteaution Bill Cooper
Keamedl F. Cooper, applicant
City of Bakersfield Planning DepartmendAttcamon Richard Dole
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TED JAMES, AICP, Director
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323
Phone: (66~) 862-8600
FAX: (661) 862-8601 TrY Relay 1400-735-2929
RE~OURCEMANAGEMENTAGENCY
DAVID PRICE III, RMA DIRECTOR
Engineering & Su~'ey Servlcel Department
Planning Department
March 3 I, 1999
FILE: Gen Corres
Mr. Jack Hardisty, Director
City of Bakersfield Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P98-0976
Dear Mr. Hardisty:
This correspondence is in response to your request for comments and recommendations regarding the
General Plan Amendment being proposed within the Kern River [,lan Element (KRPE) by Kenneth Cooper,
the owner of Coopers Nursery, to designate the site for commercial office use. This referral was made to the
County in accordance with provisions of the joint City/County KRPE that provides for the County's advisory
recommendations to be considered by the City Planning Commission and City Council.
On March 1 I, 1999, the Kern County Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposal.
The Planning Commission made a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors advise the Bakersfield
Planning Commission and City Council to disapprove General Plan Amendment P98-0976. On March 30,
1999, the Kern County Board of Supervisors considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and
recommends disapproval to the City. In addition, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Planning Director
to forward a letter to the City with a recommendation that the City disapprove General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change ['98-0976. The Planning Department analysis that was presented to the Board of Supervisors
is attached for your information.
The aforementioned recommendation was based upon the County Planning Department's analysis of the
policies and intent of the KRPE. In providing this recommendation, it is acknowledged that the Board of
Supervisors and Planning Department staffhave not considered testimony involving a noticed public hearing
and comments and final determination for the project's environmental document.
Should you have any questions, please contact ,lake Sweeny, Associate Planner, at (805) 862-8624.
AICP, Director
Planning Department
Attachment
cc Mr. Stanley Grady, City of Bakersfield Planning Director
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
UNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
March 4, 1999
KELLY E BLANTON, Supenntendenr
Richard E. Dole, Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Our File No.: Cl99-0007
Re: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P98-0976
Dear Mr. Dole:
This office represents the Panama-Buena Vista Union and Kern High School Distncts. We
appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of these districts regarding the proposed
project. Our office has determined the above-mentioned project to change the Land Use
Element and the Kern River Plan Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan from Open Space to Office Commercial (3.40 acres); Kern River Plan Element
amendment from Resource Management to Office Commercial (3.40 acres) and a request
to amend the zoning from A (Agriculture) to O-C (Professional and Administrative Office
(3.40 acres) will have no significant effects on either of these district's facilities so long as
statutory school facilities fees are collected as required by law and that no further mitigation
measures regarding school facilities are necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. If there are any changes relating
to this project, please contact this office. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of
any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Steve Hartsell,
at 636-4599, or through e-mail at mawilkins@kem.org.
Sincerely,
Kelly F. Blanton
County Superintendent of Schools
M~cility Specialist II
School Distdct Facility Services
MLW
cc: District(s)
1300 17th S[reet, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533
·.. advocates for children
] f805) b3~-4000 a FAX f80~.636-413C~-
~.~,
STATE Of CAUFORNIA- THE RESOURCES. _2NCY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
801 K Street. MS 24-02
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-8733 Phone
(916) 324-0948 Fax
(916) 324-2555 TDD
Mr. Richard Dole
Planning Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
February 11, 1999
Subject:
Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change No. P98-0976 in the City of Bakersfield, Kern County
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) has reviewed the above referenced project. The DOGGR
supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas, and
geothermal wells in California. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
The proposed project is located beyond the administrative boundaries of any oil
or gas field. There are no oil, gas, or injection wells within the boundaries of the project.
However, if excavation or grading operations uncover a previously unrecorded well, the
DOGGR district office in Bakersfield must be notified; previously unrecorded wells may
require remedial operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration. If you
have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Min Chu at the Bakersfield
district office. The address is 4800 Stockdale Highway, Suite 417, Bakersfield, CA
93309; phone (805) 322-4031.
Jason Marshall
Assistant Director
cc: Min Chu
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Bakersfield
Linda Campion
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Sacramento
The Gas Comp
February
9,
1999
City of Bakersfield '\~ '"~'~. _. '
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue ~'~
Bakersfield, California 93301
Attention: Richard E. Dole
Subject: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change P98-0976
Project Location: N Side Stockdale Hwy, W/O Arvin-Edison Canal
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve this proposed project, but only as
an information service. Its intent is to notify you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in
the area where this project is proposed. Gas service can be provided without significant impact on the
environment fi.om an existing 4-inch gas main located in Stockdale Highway. At the time service is
requested, Southern California Gas Company will request easements for any gas facilities installed in
private property. Our costs are subject to change and customers might qualify for free footage allowances
under the provisions of our extension roles.
The service would be in accordance with our policies and extension rules on file with the California Public
Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas
service, as set forth in this letter, is based on present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a
public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities
Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federat regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take
any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be
provided in accordance with revised conditions.
When your project has final approval by the city or county engineer, please contact our area Planning
Associate, Mike Bowling at (805) 393-0858. It may require up to 90 days to process your application for
the installation of gas lines in your project. If you need assistance choosing the appropriate gas equipment
for your project, or would like to discuss the most effective applications of energy efficiency techniques,
please contact Mary Cornell in our Marketing Department at (559) 739-2240.
Thank you for choosing natural gas, your best energy value.
Sincerely,
Louise Parham
Pipeline Planning Assistant
xc: Mike Bowling
Mary Cornell
404 N. Tipton Sire
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
County of Kern )
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 Auqust , 1999 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City
Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3922 , passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 25th day of Auqust 1999 , and
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 102-32 BY CHANGING THE
ZONING OF 3.40 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE KERN
RIVER CANAL, ARVIN-EDISON CANAL AND STOCKDALE HIGHWAY
FROM TO "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO "C-0" (PROFESSIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE).
Is/PAMELA A. McCARTHY
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
D~PL~-I'~Y City Clerk
S:\DOCUMEN'GAOPOSTING
August 26, 1999