Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 137-93RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN DATED JULY 1993 SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES IN EXHIBIT "B". WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) is described as follows: The MBHCP is a comprehensive planning tool designed to mitigate the impacts of urban growth on federally and state protected plant and animal species. The plan was developed by a nine member steering committee appointed by the City Council in 1987. The steering committee was made up of representatives from local government, state and federal resource agencies, conservation groups, and the building and construction industry. The plan will be the basis for applications to state and federal wildlife agencies for the following incidental take permits: A permit under Section 10(a) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and a permit under Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act. In addition, the MBHCP will comply with state and federal environmental regulations set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire, preserve and enhance native habitats which support endangered and sensitive species, while allowing urban development to proceed as set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. WHEREAS, the MBHCP is a joint City of Bakersfield/County of Kern Plan for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area; and WHEREAS, a nine member Steering Committee appointed by the City Council developed the MBHCP, with the assistance of Thomas Reid Associates consulting firm; and WHEREAS, the MBHCP requires the collection of habitat fees for purposes of acquiring and/or enhancing natural lands for their habitat preserve value; and WHEREAS, the MBHCP was initially approved in July 1991 through Resolution No. 145-91; and WHEREAS, subsequent to said approval, staff entered negotiations with State and Federal wildlife agencies to prepare an Implementation/Management Agreement for the plan; and WHEREAS, said negotiations have resulted in changes in the plan including monitoring requirements, timing of fee collection, State Deparm~ent of Fish and Game's role in the plan, management endowment fee requirements and termination provisions; and WHEREAS, because of said changes, the document has been redistributed for public review and scheduled for hearing and readoption; and WHEREAS, the MBHCP requires an "implementation trust" to be formed made up of representatives from the City and County with the primary responsibility of implementing the plan; and WHEREAS, the MBHCP will be monitored through quarterly and annual reports submitted by the trust group to the wildlife agencies issuing the 10(a) and 2081 permits; and WHEREAS, the MBHCP recommended for approval by the City Council incorporates responses to input received at public hearings; and WHEREAS, for the MBHCP, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and considered for certification by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 31-91, on April 18, 1991, the Planning Commission/Planning Advisory Committee recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 146-91, Council certified the environmental document for the MBHCP dated March 1991; and WHEREAS, due to changes in the MBHCP described above, the Final Environmental Impact Report has been slightly revised; and WHEREAS, prior to consideration of the MBHCP the Council has considered the Environmental Impact Report dated July 1993 for the project; and ORIGINAL WHEREAS, the rules and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Environmental Impact Reports as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 212-92 have been duly followed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 2. All required public notices have been given. 3. Findings set forth in Exhibit "A", attached, are true and correct and hereby incorporated by reference. 4. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, with revisions depicted in the attached Exhibit "B" is hereby adopted. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held AB6 2 `5 ~3 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERSMcOERMOTF' EDWARDS, D~MO~O, ~, BRUNNI, ROWLES, SALVAGGIO ABSTAIN: COUNCIl. MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AOG 2 ,5 1~ BOB PRICE~ MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield JM:pjt res:rcchcp August 4, 1993 ORIGINAL METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN City Council Resolution of Approval - EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT A - EXHIBIT B - Figure 20- Figure 21 - Figure 22 - Figure 23 - Figure 24 - California Environmental Quality Act Findings Sand Ridge Preserve Expansion area. Page 70 of MBHCP - Add Note as Shown High value lands in the Lokern Road area. Page 71 of MBHCP - Add Note as Shown High value lands in Semi-Tropic Ridge area. Page 73 of MBHCP - Add Note as Shown Preserve opportunities outside of Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Page 75 of MBHCP - Add Note as Shown CDFG pre-approved acquisition areas. Page 76 of MBHCP - Add Note as Shown Table 6 - Description of potential preserve acquisition areas. Page 81 of MBHCP - Add Note as Shown ORIGINAL EXHIBIT "A" CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS Statutory Basis for Findings These findings and substantial evidence provided herewith are required pursuant to Section 15091(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, which states: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects on the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanies by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (i) Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Finding pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as Amended LOSS OF HABITAT FOR STATE AND FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. A. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT Development of natural or open lands will resuR in loss of habitat supporting federally and state protected species as identified on pages 97 and 98 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and Environmental Impact Report which will result in a take of the species. B. FINDING Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. C. SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE The MBHCP requires the acquisition and enhancement of native habitat lands which support endangered and threatened plant and animal species in perpetuity as mitigation for any development. Implementation of the MBHCP avoids piecemeal mitigation in use now and will benefit the species by providing long-term protection in the creation of habitat preserves administered by the State or other acceptable entity. This program provides a multi-species mitigation strategy through acquisition of Lower Sonoran Grassland and Alkali Sink habitat lands. Preservation of natural lands has a greater species value and represents a more viable long-term habitat than existing rural or agricultural lands within the 2010 General Plan area. The MBHCP allows consideration for acquisition of pre-approved lands identified as valuable habitat by CDF,~.~,,. It also allows for the acquls~tlon of properties adjacent to existing management areas such a~c~he ~4~ Kern Water Bank and Aliensworth Preserve. ,_~ ORIGINAL * City of Bakersfield, "Draft Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat conservation Plan, dated July, 1993." City of Bakersfield, "Final Environmental Impact Report, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, SCH No. 89020264 dated July, 1993. City of Bakersfield, "Final Environmental Impact Report, Appendix D: Response to Comments, SCH No. 89020264, dated July, 1993. City of Bakersfield, Environmental Assessment on Issuance of Incidental Take Permit Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, dated July, 1993. DEVELOPMENT WILL INVOLVE A "TAKING" OF THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT The United States and California Endangered Species Act provides for the protection of endangered and threatened species. Section 9 of the Act prescribes civil and criminal penalties for take of a protected species except when the take is in accordance with a valid permit issued under Section 10(a) (Federal) and through the issuance of a 2081 permit (State of California). Development often causes a "take" of a species. FINDING Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE Approval of the MBHCP will result in the issuance of 10(a)(1)(B) and 2081 permits which will authorize the "taking" of endangered species. Mitigation for the issuance of the 10(a)(1)(B) and 2081 permits will result in the acquisition and the enhancement of habitat management lands within and outside the Metropolitan Bakersfield area for species protection. Issuance of the 10(a)(l)(B) permit has concluded that the take has been mitigated to the maximum degree practical and any take of a species would be incidental. The MBHCP also encourages the relocation or salvage of endangered species prior to grading or construction. An inventory of known kit fox dens and rare plant locations will be maintainedby the Implementation Trust for future relocation efforts prior to development. City of Bakersfield, "Draft Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, dated July, 1993." City of Bakersfield, "Final Environmental Impact Report, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, SCH No. 89020264, dated July, 1993. City of Bakersfield, "Final Environmental Impact Report, Appendix D: Response to Comments, SCH No. 89020264, dated July, 1993. City of Bakersfield, Environmental Assessment on Issuance of Incidental Take Permit Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, dated July, 1993. ORIGINAL LOSS OF 23.75 SQUARE MILES OF NATURAL LANDS SIGNIFICANT EFFECT Development of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area could result in the loss of up to 23.75 square miles of natural lands which is habitat for he San Joaquin Kit Fox, the Bakersfield Cactus, the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, and Hoover's Wooly-star. FINDING Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE Collection of HCP mitigation funds will allow acquisition and/or enhancement of preserve land both within and outside Metropolitan Bakersfield. The MBHCP has designated Focus Areas in the Northeast and Southwest portions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area for potential acquisition sites which are known habitat areas. The Kern River Corridor contains approximately 1400 acres of natural lands for a dispersal corridor for the kit fox and other species. The primary floodplain of the Kern River is not included within the MBHCP and will not be covered under the 10(a) permit as this dispersal corridor is an important part of any preserve system. ll~e mitigation ratio for enhancement of lands for each acre of development is greater for natural lands than other urban lands. The mitigation must keep pace with development and must result in a net gain of: 1 acre of enhancement for each acre of open land lost or 3 acres of enhancement for each 1 acre of natural land lost, whichever is greater. City of Bakersfield, "Draft Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, dated July, 1993." City of Bakersfield "Final Environmental Impact Report, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, SCH No. 89020264 dated July, 1993. City of Bakersfield, "Final Environmental Impact Report, Appendix D: Response to Comments, SCH No. 89020264, dated July, 1993. City of Bakersfield, Environmental Assessment on Issuance of Incidental Take Permit Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, dated July, 1993. p:ceqa.fdg ORIGINAL EXHIBIT B Notations on Maps/Tables ORIGINAL · FIGURE 20 -- SAND RIDGE PRESERVE EXPANSION AREA ORIGINAl_ ~ NOTE, PRESERVE OPPORTUNITIES ARE CONCEI~I'UAL ONLY AND DO NOT REMOVE ANY PRE-EXISTING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS PROVIDED BY ADOPTED CITY AND COUNTY PLANS AND ZONING Sand Ridge Preserve T31 S T30E 7 SOLrRCE: Base Map: BLM Tehachap£ quad Prese:'ve Sonndaries: TNC $CAL~ March 1991 o '~T25S 'R21E KERN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REF PROPOSED SEMITROPIC NORTH ECOLOGICAL PRE NOTE: PRESERVE OPPORTUNITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND DO NOT REMOVE ANY PRE-EXISTING LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS PROVIDED BY ADOPTED CII'Y AND COUNTY PI,ANS AND ZONING HIGH VALUE LANDS IN SEMITROPIC RIDGE AREA SOURCE: Base Map: BI2I Delano Quad Boundary: TNC SCALE 8 9 4 5 J , -- / ~ 'i' _1 .~..~T.. / _~1~ [] itl - ~l~ J. , ~iche~-ov, ~/-- - 26. PRESERVE OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE OF -- ~. ......... ~----~ ZI. :. rT..: .[al.~ I ~-IF~. ~/~. ~1 L' · · -~':" THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA ~;n~ ~aT~nu~ . "PROPOSED ALLENSWORTH~ [~ 0 4 8 ] 2 . / ~C~L~'~E 'ECOLOGICAL RESERVE '~-~l :~ I PRdPOSED S~a~TROP~C ' ~ ' t~ I ~ [~ "O"TH ,, / NORTH ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ~ It I I ~ ~w, Source: United States Geological Su~ey, TRA ' X, ~SEMITROP~CRIDG~ ~ . ~ ~ Cl~ AND COUN~ PlaN5 AND ZONING I~ t/~ ~', ~ I , · ....... ~ / "~ERSRE~2010GENE~LP~NAR~ I '~:. ~LOKERN ROAD , ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.:~ _ 2. ~ ~ ~ SA~ RIDGE. ~, :: PRESERVE '1.I KERN COUNT.Y__, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY KINGS TULARE HIGHWAY 46 WASCO NOTF~ PRESERVE OPPORTUNITIES ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND DO NOT REMOVE ANY PRE-EXISTING LAND USE ENT1TLEMEN~fS PROVIDED BY ADOFFED Cll~ AND COUNTY PLANS AND ZONING ACQUISITIONS FOR 'I~IE PROGRAM WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON 'HiE COOPERATION OF WII.LING SELl.ERS PROPERTY CDFG PREAPPROVED ACQUISITION AREAS LJ EQUALS ONE SQUAb~E MI~ ~ F,"~'~'~ DEN OTES PREAPPROVED ACQUISITION AREA I~tEI'ROPOL~ ;4N BAKERSFI['-LD HABITAT METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD HCP - HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN TABLE 6 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL PRESERVE ACQUISITION AREAS NAME LOCATION ACREAGE SPECIES PRESENT South of Hart T29S. R28E. Sec. 1.11.12 2.800 Park T29S, R29E, Sec. 6,7 T28S. R28E. Sec. 35 S1/2 Bakersfield cactus: Blunt-nosed leoparo lizard: San Joaquin kit fox South of Highway 178 North of Airport Wooly-star Preser,'e T29S, R29E. Sec. 19, 24 T29S. R28E, Sec. 24 T28S. R27E. Sec. 34, 35 T30S. R28E, Sec. 33, 34 Bakersfield cactus; San Joaquin kit fox 1.000 Bakersfield cactu~ 300 Hoover's wooly star. San Joaquin kit fox Wooly-threads T30S. R25E. Sec. 12 N~A 300 San Joaquin wooly-thread: Blunt- nosed leopard lizard: San Joaquin kit fox West of T31S, R25E. 12.600 Interstate 5 Sec. 1.2,3.11.12,13,14,23.24 T31S, R26E Sec. 4,5,6,7.8,16.17.18,19,20.2 L22 Hoover's wooly-start San Joaquin kit fox; Blunt-nosed leopard lizard; Tipton kangaroo rat; Giant kangaroo rat; San Joaquin antelope squirrel Source: Thomas Reid Aaso¢iates (1988) NOTE: Table 6 does not imply that property owners within these areas are willing sellers or participants in the MBHCP program. All or portions of Sections 1 & 12 T.31S,R.25E and Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18 T.31S, R.26E ident/fied in the '~vest of Interstate 5" site are under contract with the City of Bakersfield for disposal of treated wastewater effluent (Ci~ Agreement 85-142). b. Part 2: Participation in Outside Preserve Programs Part 2 entails MBHCP participation in land acquisition programs outside of the MBHCP and immediately adjoining area. Several endangered species and native habitat preserves already exist in Kern County. Most are 15 miles or more from the City of Bakersfield, but many support the same plant and animal species of concern in Bakersfield. It is anticipated that preserve possibilities in the MBHCP study area boundary are not adequate to mitigate the full impacts of development, and therefore. MBHCP mitigation funds should be used to expand or enhance off-site preserves. Some off-site preserve opportunities are shown in Figure 23. Additional preserve opportunities identified by CDFG and USFWS should also be considered by the implementation trust (Figure 24}. ORIGINAL July 1993 - Page 81