HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 64-93RESOLUTION NO. 64 - 9 3
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING SEGMENT
X OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
2010 GENERAL PLAN (CIRCULATION ELEMENT
AMENDMENT 1-93).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public
hearing on MARCH 18, 1993, on Segment X of a proposed amendment to the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having
been given at least twenty-one (21) calendar days before said hearing by publication in
the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such Segment X of the proposed amendment to the
Circulation Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
SEGMENT X:
LANDTECH INVESTMENT CORPORATION, agent for
Tandam Coast, Inc., a Cal Corp. has applied to amend the
Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan consisting of a change to relocate a designated
collector located north of Highway 178 between Rancheria
Road and Alfred Harrell Highway;
and
WHEREAS, for the above-described Segment, an Initial Study was
conducted, and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant
effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration with mitigation was prepared;
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 and the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 22-93 on March 18, 1993, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of Segment X subject to conditions
listed in Exhibit "A" and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the
Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
ORIG¢~A,_
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public
hearing on WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1993, on the above described Segment X of the
proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10)
calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. All required public notices have been given.
2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed.
3. Based on the initial study, staff has determined that the proposed
project could not have a significant effect on the environment, with the recommended
mitigation measures. A Negative Declaration was posted on February 11, 1993, and
advertised on February 13, 1993, in accordance with CEQA.
4. The proposed amendment of the general plan circulation element is
compatible with existing residential designations and is necessary to provide a more
direct link to Alfred Harrell Highway.
5. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan policies which promote an efficient
circulation system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are true and
correct.
2. The Negative Declaration for Segment X is hereby approved and
adopted.
3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports
and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to
the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
2
ORIGINAL
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts Segment X of the
proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "B" and
incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located north of Highway
178 between Rancheria Road and Alfred Harrell Highway, subject to conditions of
approval shown on Exhibit "A".
5. That Segment X, approved herein, be combined with other approved
segments described in separate resolutions, to form a single Circulation Element
Amendment, GPA 1-93.
3
ORIG[~AL
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
MAY 1 I~ 1~3 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMEERS: EDWARDS, [:~eMOND, SMITH, BRUNN[ KANE, McDERMOTT SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUi'.!ClLMEMBERS J~e13~
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: ___ k,I oel~ _.
ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS J~/o t~O..
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED ~h' 1_ [ ~
BOB PRICE 6/
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
LAWRENCE M. LUNARDINI
CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
MO:pjt
March 30, 1993
res\r193s10.cc
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT "A"
General Plan Amendment 1-93, Segment X
+
Prior to site disturbance, an archaeological survey be conducted for the project
site.
In order to mitigate the impacts of any urban land conversion on the San Joaquin
kit fox (a State and Federally-listed endangered species), the applicant must, prior
to ground disturbance, follow the Advisory Notice, detailing the Interim
Mitigation Measures established for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Upon further subdivision or development within the project area, the developer
will enter into an agreement with the city and post approved security to guarantee
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the collector street and
Alfred Harrell Highway. The signal shall be installed when required by the City
Engineer. A reimbursement agreement with the developer for fees collected for
this traffic signal from other future developments will be allowed.
The proposed intersection of the collector street and Alfred Hattell Highway is
on or near a State adopted alignment for a future State Route 178 freeway. In
design of the collector street and its intersection with Alfred Harrell Highway, the
future ultimate freeway alignment may need to be considered and provided for.
At the time of further development and prior to submission of a tentative
subdivision map within the area affected by the proposed collector street (i.e.
Tentative Parcel Map 9900 boundaries), a master circulation plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. A street connection between
Lake Ming Road and the realigned collector street shall be a part of this
circulation plan.
The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to indemnify and defend
it against a challenge to any action of the city upon the application.
p:193s10.ea
ORIGINAL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1-93, SEGMENT X
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
EXHIBIT B
RK
PROPOSED"
I0
2
Minutes. PC, 3/18/93 Page 20
3.10
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93, SEGMENT X
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened: no one spoke in opposition.
Dan Murphy represented the applicant, stating their agreement with staff
recommendation.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh
to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the
Negative Declaration and approving GPA 1-93, Segment X amending the
Circulation Element by relocating a collector street as shown on Exhibit "A" and
conditions of approval in memorandum from the Public Works Department dated
March 18, 1993 with mitigation in Exhibit "B" and recommend same to City
Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Hersh, Messnet, Rosenlieb
NOES: None
ABSENT:
~ 4. COMMUNICATIONS
~A) Written
B) Verbal-..
None
Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Powers
5. COMMISSION COMMENTS
A. Committees
l)
General Plan
No new information
I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EFFECT
EARTH Soiis
G~o~ic HaTaras
Tol:x~rapny
WATER
QuaiitWQuan~ty
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ::
TRANSPORTATION
Trafilc/Circui-,'~on
S = Significant
LAND USE
~ X Comodebility
~ X' GaneraJ Plan/Zoning
~ ~ Gr~ I~
PUB~ ~RV~E8
Pofice
X ~ Fire
~ ~ Sc~s
X x UT~8
~ X W~
~ ~ MOU~
~ ~ NOIM
UG~ ~D
~ X NA~R~ RE~URCE8
~ X ENERGY U~E
(N~: DISCUSSION RE~RDING ~E ABOVE IMPA~ IS A~ACHED.)
IMPACT
Y = Yes N = No ORD = Ordinance Rac!u~mment
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Y
N
Does the orolect nave the po~r~aJ to degracle the auaJit~ of the en~ronme~t, $ut~stertfiaJly reduce the hebitet of a fish
Imoorterlt exa,q'tplN of the me~or periods of California history or prei~istm¥?
Does the pro~ect here ~mpacts which individually limited. but cumuia/~vely cormideraDle? (A pro/ectmeyiml~acton ~wo or
ilk FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION
(Projects where a Neggdve Declare:don or EIR has nc~ been previously prepared, or where ~ prewous ,"*ocument will no~ be utilized.)
ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION (check one):
__ It has been found that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~__ It is been found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because MITIGATION MEASURES, as identified in the
Discussion of Environmental Impacts, have been incorporated into the project; therefore, a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
__ It has been found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EIR
(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) will be prepared.
PREPARED BY:
~,~,T,,J 0 ~,.Tvz.. ~ DATE:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1-93, SEGMENT X
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
PROPOSED"
--I0 --
APPENDIX I
General Plan Amendment 1-93, Segment X
Circulation Element Amendment
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
Soils - The proposed project will result in the site to be insignificantly disrupted, compacted,
displaced, overcovered and uncovered by grading, filling, trenching, installation of drainage
facilities, and other ground preparation activities. Standard ordinance compliance includes the
requirement for soils and grading reports prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to
applicable building codes.
Geoloeic Ilazards - Geology of the site is not considered a unique geologic or physical feature.
The site is currently undeveloped. 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 Joaquin 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 criteria from the Uniform Building
Code, adequate drainage facility design, and complete precoustruction soils and grading studies.
Erosion / Sedimentation - No streams, canals or beaches are near the project site to be impacted
by the proposed development. ttowever, the Kern River is located northeast of the project site,
the proposal will not affect the river. Typical ordinance requirements ensure that erosion, siltation
or deposition of soils from the site by water run-off will not occur through development of the
project, nor through drainage of the site after construction. Wind erosion and fugitive dust may
occur during the construction process; however. normal use of water spraying will control wind
erosion impacts and should not be considered significant.
Topography - The slope of the natural terrain on-site is flat to exceeding 30% slope. Project
development may result in a change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features of the
area. Prior to construction of the project, typical ordinance requirements to ensure that changes
to topography will meet city standards.
Water
Water Quatitv /Quantitv -
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.
Surface Water - The proposed project to relocate a collector will not result in discharge into any
surface water, alter surface water quality to a significant degree, including but not limited 1o
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity.
Append~ I
GPA1-93, Seg. X
Page 2
Floodine/Draina~:e - 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. The site is not in an area subject to flooding,
therefore the proposal will not expose people or property to water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount
of surface water runoff will change as the project is developed. 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.
Ai~r
Air Quality - 'lb_ere 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.
Climate/Air Movement - Land uses intended or allowed through the proposed project will not
significantly alter air movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change in climate,
either locally or regionally.
Odors - The proposed project does not appear to have the potential to create objectionable odors.
Biololtical Resources
Plants - Although existing species of plants on-site would be removed through 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 - Although existing species of animals on-site would be removed through development of
the collector, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or substantially
diminish or significantly reduce wildlife habitat. These effects are not deemed significant.
Rare/Endangered Species: A biological survey revealed potential San Joaquin kit fox dens or
habitat on-site. Other unique, rare or endangered animal or plant species were not identified as
present. The proposal should not substantially affect, reduce the number, or restrict the range of
any unique, rare, or endangered species of animal or plant, or their habitat. In order to mitigate
the impacts of any natural to urban land conversion on the kit fox (a Federally.-listed Endangered
Species), or its habitat, the applicants must, prior to ground disturbance, follow the Metropolitan
Bakersfield IIabitat Conservation Plan Advisory Notice, detailing the Interim Mitigation Measures
established for the MBIICP.
Ilabitat Alteration - Development of the collector may alter the area's habitat by introducing
domesticated or fetal species of animals into the area. The project may result in the creation of a
barrier to the migration or movement of animals from the surrounding open 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.
Append~ I
GPA1-93, Seg. X
Page 3
'['he 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 - ~lhe proposed project may generate additional vehicular movement, may
cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and
capacity of the street system, and may substantially impact existing transportation systems. The
project may significantly alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods.
A traffic analysis has not been required for the proposal, however, the City Engineer has required
a letter report supporting the proposal. See attached report.
Parking - Existing parking facilities will not be affected, nor will there be a demand for new
parking through the proposed development.
Traffic Hazards - 'Ihere would be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed project.
Air/Water/Rail Systems - The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological - The archaeological inventory at California State University Bakersfield has been
sent a copy of the proposal and have an opportunity to respond on any affects to archaeological
Historical - l'he site is vacant and contains no historical structures or other resources to be
impacted by the development of either collector. The project will not eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to historic building, structure or objects.
Land Use
Comoatibilitv - The proposed project is to relocate a collector street. The existing land uses
surrounding and adjacent to the project site include fallow land, agricultural land and a goff
course. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted environmental plans, disrupt or divide
the physical arrangement of an established community, or create a significant land use
compatibility problem.
General Plan/Zonin~ - The present land use designation will not change. The proposal will
relocate a collector street, and not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land
use of the area, as no land use amendments or zoning changes are proposed with the project.
Growlh Inducement - The proposed project will not induce substantial growth.
Appendix I
GPA 1-93, Seg. X
Page 4
Prime A~ricultural Land - No agricultural crops currently exist on site.
Public Services
Police - The proposal will not affect City Police protection in the area, as no new residents would
be included in the City with this proposal.
Police protection for the area is currently provided by the
Fire - The proposal will not affect City fire service for the area, as no new residents or structures
will be included in the City.
Schools - The proposed project would not impact school facilities to a significant degree.
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.
Solid Waste / Disl~osal - 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 litter control.
Facility Maintenance - The proposed relocation of the collector will result in an increase in
maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. This is not deemed significant at this time.
Utilities
Water - The proposed relocation of the collector would not result in a need for significant
additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area.
Wastewater - The proposed relocation of the collector would not result in a need for significant
additional systems or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area.
Storm Drainaee - The proposed relocation of the collector would not result in a need for
significant additional systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems in the area.
Natural Gas - The proposed relocation of the collector would not result in a need for significant
additional systems or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area.
Electricity - The proposed rolocation of the collector would not result in a need for significant
additional systems or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area.
Communications - The proposed relocation of the collector would not result in a need for
significant additional systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area.
Population / Employment / HousinR
There will not be a significant impact on population, employment or housing.
Appendix I
GPA 1-93, Seg. X
Page 5
Health Hazards / Public Safety
No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as
a result of the proposed development. 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 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.
Liltlit and Glare
Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities surrounding the proposed
development and anticipated vehicle traffic.
Natural Resources
No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the
proposed project.
Enerk~ Usage
The proposed relocation of the collector would not result in significant irreversible environmental
changes, including uses of nonrenewable energy resources. 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.
II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
l'he 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 no~t have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
Appendix I
GPA 1-93, Seg. X
Page 6
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
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
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 FE1R, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of
Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield ttabitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Ilabitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, Interim kit fox
mitigation, September 1987.
Casa Loma Specific Plan, August 1986, City/County.
Polo Grounds/Callow~ No. 3 DEIR, September 1989, Northcurt & Assoc.£Yakata Assoc.
Polo Grounds/Callow~ No. 3 FEIR, November 1989, Northcutt & Assoc./Takata Assoc.
Baker Street Corridor Specific Plan, August 1986, City.
Kern River Parkway Plan DEIR, hEIR & Technical Appendix, July & Sept. 1988, Jones & Stokes
Assoc.
Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan
Kern River Plan Element, July 1985, City/County
P:193s10.ai
· Exhibit "A"
Recommended Mitigation Measures
General Plan Amendment 1-93, Segment X
In order to mitigate the impacts of any natural to urban land conversion on the San Joaquin kit
fox (a State and Federally-listed Endangered Species), the applicant must. prior to ground
disturbance, follow the Advisory Notice, detailing the Interim Mitigation Measures established for
the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan.