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