Loading...
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.