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