Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 63-93RESOLUTION NO. 6,1i - 9 3 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING SEGMENT IX 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 IX 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 IX of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: SEGMENT IX: THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD has applied to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of a change on the Comprehensive Circulation Plan Map to designate Monitor Street between White Lane and Pacheco Road as a collector and to amend the Bikeway Master Plan to add several segments to Bikeway Facilities as "Bike Lane - Class I1" and to change several segments from "Future Bikeway" to "Bike Lane - Class 11" as indicated on Exhibit "A." 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 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 ORIGINAL WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 21-93 on March 15, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of Segment IX and this Council has fully considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and 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 IX 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. A Negative Declaration was posted on February 11, 1993, and advertised on February 13, 1993, in accordance with CEQA. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 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 IX 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 IX of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on Exhibit "A" and the maps marked Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located city-wide and along Monitor Street between Pacheco and White Lane, respectively. 5. That Segment IX, approved herein, be combined with other approved segments described in separate resolutions, to form a single Circulation Element Amendment, GPA 1-93. .......... 00o .......... 3 ORIGINAL 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 [IAY 3, ~l. ~ by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: EDWARDS, DeMOND. SMITH. [~RUNNI, KANE, McDERMOTT SALVAGG~O NOES: COUNCILMEMbERS ABSENT COUNCiLMEMBERS: ~..~ o~ ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS' CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAY 1 2 ~ MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield MO:pjt March 30, 1993 re~r193s9.cc ORiGiNAL EXHIBIT "A" General Plan Amendment 1-93, Segment IX Amendment to the Bikeway Master Plan The Bikeway Master Plan: The following street segments be added to Bikeways Facilities as "Bike Lane - Class lI": Snow Road - Allen Road to Fruitvale Ave. Calloway Drive - Stockdale Highway to Snow Road Brimhall Road - Allen Road to Coffee Road N. Laurelglen Blvd. - Gosford Road to Wilford Court S. Laurelglen Blvd. - Wilford Court to Gosford Road Old River Road - White Lane to Taft Hwy. Stockdale Hwy. - Renfro Road to Allen Road Panorama Drive - Fairfax Road to Morning Drive The following street segments change from "Future Bikeway" to "Bike Lane - Class I1": Allen Road - Stockdale Hwy. to Snow Road Hageman Road - Allen Road to Mohawk Street Coffee Road - Truxtun Avenue to Snow Road Fruitvale Avenue - Hageman Road to Olive Drive Mohawk Street - Truxtun Avenue to Hageman Road Olive Drive - Coffee Road to Fruitvale Avenue Stockdale Hwy. - Allen Road to Old River Road Buena Vista Road - Taft Highway to Stockdale Highway Gosford Road - Taft Highway to Panama Lane Ashe Road - Taft Highway to White Lane Stine Road - Taft Highway to Panama Lane Wible Road - Taft Highway to Panama Lane Paladino Drive - Fairfax Road to Highway 178 p:193s9.ea ORIGINAL o 0Ir Yox, I1~11 ^scL^ss. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93, SEGMENT IX - BIKEWAY GENERAL PLAN 1-93. SEGMENT IX - ,',miTE AMENDMENT CIRC. ELEMENT ARTE:b~L AvE L__J 'i ,~vE. ;%~ANET ~AYE ,~0S, ,R28E EXHIBIT C TO BECOME A COLLECTOR % ORIGINAL Minutes, PC, 3/~ Page 19 Commissioner Marino amporion to include a 40~foot setback from commercial to residential, Commissio~r~drew seconded the amendment. Motion carried by the following roll call vote~ AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohm Hersh~z Mess~ Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None 3.9 PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93, SEGMENT IX Commissioner Powers left at this time, relinquishing the chair to Commissioner Messher. Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he markets properties in subject area. Commissioner Marino abstained due to a conflict in that his employer may own property in this area. Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained due to the fact her employer owns property in the area. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened: no one spoke in opposition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Walker gave description of classes of bike paths. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, 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 IX amending the Comprehensive Circulation Plan Map and the Bikeway Master Plan of the Circulation Element as shown on Exhibit "A", and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwelk Hersh. Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Marino, Rosenlieb, Powers Project I. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EFFECT EARTH Soils Ge~ogic Hazeres Erosion/Sedimontaton ToDography WATER Quality/Quantity - Groundwater - Surface W~ter Rooding/Drmnage AIR Air Quality Climate/Air Movement BIOLOGICAl. RESOURCES Plants AnimaJs Rare/Endangered Specie~ TRANSPORTATION Traffic/Circulaton Parking Traffic Haz~ds Air/Water/Rail Systems CULTURAL RESOURCEE Archaeological Historical S = Significant x X X X EFFECT LAND USE Cornpat bility Ger~'al Plan/Zoning Grow~ Inducement Prime Ag Land Loss PUBUC SERVICES Police Fire Schools Parks/Recreation Solid Wa~te Dispm~al Facility Maintenance UTIMTIE8 Wat~ Wastewater Storm Drainage Natural Gas ElectScity Communicaton POPULATION HOUSING HEALTH HAZARDS NOIE~ ~ESTHETICS UGHT AND GLARE NATURAL RESOURCES ENERGY UEAGE (NOTE: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ABOVE iMPACTS IS ATrACHED,) P = Potentially Significant )~ x ~ X ~ ~ x Ix Ix Insignificant/No Effect Y -- Yes N = No ORD = Ordinance Requirement II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Ooes the project have the potential to dogrede the quality of the environment. substen, ally reduce the habitat of a fish or w~ldlife specms, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate e plant or animal community, reduce the number or resthct the range of a rai'e or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate imporient examples of the major periods of California histoM or prehisto~/? Does the prolect have the potential to achieve short-te~m, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short term ~m~act on the environment is one of which occurs in a relatively bdef, definite pedod of time while long-term ~mDects w~11 en~ure well into the future.) Does the project have impacts which individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A p~ojectmayiml~cton two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource $ relatively smell, but where the effect of the total of those imoacts on the environment is significant). Y N Does the DrOJect t~ave environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly III. FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION (Projecls wh~'® a Nega~ve Oeclaration or EtR has not been previously prepareel. or wller® a prev]o~l document will not be ul~liz~d.) 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. (ENVIRONMENTAL~ REPORT) will be prepared. It has been found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1-93, SEGMENT IX - BIKEWAY APPENDIX I General Plan Amendment 1-93, Segment IX I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth Soils - The soils are not considered "prime" for agricultural purposes by the State Department of Conservation. The amendment to the Circulation Element will not significantly effect soils in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Geoloeic Hazards - 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 Metropolitan Bakersfield, 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 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 prior to building structures for human occupancy. Erosion / Sedimentation - No rivers, streams, canals or beaches will be impacted by the proposed project. Typical ordinance requirements ensure that erosion, siltation or deposition of soils from the project by water run-off will not occur, nor through drainage after construction. Wind erosion and fugitive dust may occur; however, normal use of water spraying will control wind erosion impacts and should not be considered significant. Topography - The project will not result in a change to the topography and/or ground surface relief features to a significant degree. 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. 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. FloodinefDrainaee - 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. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff will not change with the project proposal. 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. Appendix I GPA 1-93, Seg. IX Page 2 Ai~r Air Qualit'/- There will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a substantial deterioration of ambient air quality through 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 - 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. Biological Resources Plants - The proposed project will not affect existing plant species nor eliminate a plant community or substantially diminish or reduce wildlife habitat. Animals - The proposed project will not affect existing animal species nor eliminate a wildlife community or substantially diminish or significantly reduce wildlife habitat. Rare/Endangered St~ecies - The proposal will not substantially affect, reduce the number, or restrict the range of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animal or plant, or their habitat. Habitat Alteration - The project proposal will not impact the wildlife habitat. 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. Transoortation Traffic/Circulation - The proposed project will not generate additional vehicular movement, 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. The existing right-of-way for Monitor Street is developed to collector standards, which is the reason for the amendment. Parking - Existing parking facilities will not be affected, nor will there be a demand for new parking through the proposed development. Traffic Hazards - There 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. Append~ I GPA1-93, Seg. IX Page 3 Cultural Resources Archaeological - The project does not have the potential to cause damage to an important archaeological resource or potentially cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Historical - The project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory or result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. Land Use Compatibility - 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. General Plan/Zoning - The proposal will 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. 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. Prime A~ricultural Land - The project proposal will not impact agricultural lands. Public Services Police - The proposal will not affect City Police protection in the area, as no new residents would be added to the City. Fire - The proposal will not affect City fire service for the area, as no new residents or structures will be added to the City. Schools - The proposed project would not impact school facilities to a significant degree. Parks / Recreation - The project proposal will not increase population 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 / Disposal - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The proposal will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control. Facility Maintenance - Street or other public facility improvements will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant. Appendix I GPA 1-93, Seg. IX Page 4 Utilities Water - The proposal would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Wastewater - The proposal would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities. All utility companies have been contacted regarding the proposal. Storm Drainage - The proposal would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems. All utility companies have been contacted regarding the proposal. Natural Gas - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area. Electricity - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area. Communications - The proposed project would not resuR in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area. Population / Emolovment / Housint 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, or affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. The project will not, however, result in significant reduced employment opportunities for low and moderate income socio- economic groups or impact the social affiliation or interaction of the community. Health Hazards / Public Safetv No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as a result of the proposed project. 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 interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Noise The proposed project will not significantly increase noise levels. Aesthetics The proposed project will not significantly affect open space, scenic vistas nor views open to the public. Appendix I GPA 1-93, Seg. IX Page 5 Light and Glare Light and glare would not increase as a result of the proposed project. Natural Resources No non-renewable or other natural resources will be used or depleted through the proposed project. EnergyUsage The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes, including uses of nonrenewable energy resources, during 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 sJ~ificant 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 period demands for electricity and other forms of 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. II. 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 elfccts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Reference List 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. Appendix I GPA 1-93, Seg. IX Page 6 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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 BakersfieM Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, Interim kit fox mitigation, September 1987. Casa Loma Specific Plan, August 1986, City/County. Polo Grounds/Calloway No. 3 DEIR, September 1989, Northcurt & Assoc.fFakata Assoc. Polo Grounds/Calloway No. 3 FEIR, November 1989, Northcutt & Assoc.fFakata Assoc. Baker Street Corridor Specific Plan, August 1986, City. Kern River Parkway Plan DEII~ FEIR & Technical Appendix, July & Sept. 1988, Jones & Stokes Assoc. ~tle 17, Zoning OMinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code. Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan Kern River Plan Element, July 1985, City/County p:193s9.ai CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include County): General Plan Amendment 1-93, Segment IX - Cimulation Element Amendment Located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area in the County of Kern. Project Description: Amendment to the Circulation Element Comprehensive Circulation Plan Map to designate Monitor Street, Pacheco Road and White Lane as a collector and the Bikeway Master Plan to add streets to bikeway facilities to "Bike Lane - Class II" and to change streets to 'Bike Lane - Class II". Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): Monitor Street is fully developed and is located in an area that has been developed to the maximum densities. The Bikeway Master Plan Amendments are located where future urban designations and present developments are. The incremental expansion of the urban area will be reviewed at a later date under separate applications. 3. The City of Bakersfield has not received any evidence into the record to Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above f'mding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as der'reed in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. (Pla ~ r~'n~ffTcial) Title: Associate Planner Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield Date: January 25, 1993