HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 147-90RESOLUTION NO.147-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD AND CERTIFICATE OF FINDINGS OF
FACT IN REGARD TO AN APPLICATION AMENDING
THE BOUNDARIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE #14
(KERN COUNTY) BY EXCLUSION OF 108 ACRES.
WHEREAS, the City Council, through its secretary, did
set, Wednesday, Nowember 7, 1990, at the hour of 7 p.m. in the
Council Chamber of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California, as the time and place for a public hearing before
said City Council on an application amending the boundaries of
Agricultural Preserve #14 (Kern County) by exclusion of 108
acres, and accompanying proposed negative declaration, notice of
the public hearing having been given in the manner provided in
Section 6061 of the California Public Resources Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Agricultural Preserve herein described was
established in the County of Kern pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 and it has been proposed that. the bound-
aries of said preserve be altered to exclude one hundred eight
acres, as described in Exhibit "A";
and
WHEREAS, the director of the Planning Department has
filed a report recommending exclusion of such land from the
boundaries of Agricultural Preserve #14, and advised that such
would be consistent with the various elements of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 Plan, (as required by Government Code, Section
51234);
and
WHEREAS, a~ said public hearing held November' 7, 1990,
the request to alter the boundaries of Agricultural Preserve #14.
Exclusion was duly heard and considered, the City Council found
as follows:
1. All required public notices have been given.
2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed.
3. The proposed exclusion would not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment.
4. Proposed exclusion is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan which designates
proposed site as low density residential.
this
5. Proposed exclusion is consistent with the present
land use zone designation.
6. The proposed exclusion is on non-prime agricultural
soils. The Conservation Element protects the conversion of prime
agricultural soils ,only. This property is currently designated
and zoned for residential uses and was not intended to be pre-
served for agriculture uses by the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, tlne above findings are based on the following
facts:
1. The exclusion of the approximate 108 acres of the
subject property from the boundaries of Agricultural Preserve No.
14 is consistent with the R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone district.
2. The property is not prime agricultural land in
accordance with the soil conservation land use capability
classifications.
3. Based apon an initial environmental assessment,
staff has determined the project would not have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was
advertised and posted on October 5, 1990, in accordance with
CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and
adopted.
3. The Agricultural Preserve of the County of Kern
herein referred to is hereby modified and altered by excluding
therefrom 108 acres of land, more particularly described in the
attached legal description (Exhibit "A").
.......... o0o ..........
-2-
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 on NOV ? ~9§0 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCtLMEMBERS EOWARD,~DOe,~,~Oe. ND, SMITH, ORUNN[ PETERSON, McDESMOTT, SALVAGOIO
NO~S: COUNC~LMEMDER$
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED this ~OV 7 1990
E. MEDDERS
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
ROBERT M. SHERFY /y
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of %he City of Bakersfield
r/ragp
pjt
KXHI BIT "A"
Exclusion from A~ricultural Preserve #14
within the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, CA
All that portion of ~he east half of the southeast quarter and the south-
west quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 29 South,
Range 28 East, M.D.B.&M. in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State
of California, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section 12;
Thence N 0°29'16" E, along the east line of said southeast quarter, a dis-
tance of 2649.01 feet to the northeast corner of the southeast quarter of
said Section 12;
Thence N 89°48'41" W, along the north line of said southeast ~arter, a
distance of 1336.43 feet to the northwest corner of the east ~lf of the
southeast quarter of said Section 12;
Thence S 0°31'12" W, a distance of 1323.99 feet to the northeast corner of
the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said ~%=ction 12;
Thence N 89°47'21" W, along the north line of said southwest ~]arter, a
distance of 1150.69 feet;
Thence S 0~38'01" W, a distance of 1323.56 feet to the south line of the
southeast quarter of said Section 12;
Thence S 89°46'01" E, along said south line, a distance of 2491.23 feet to
the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom Cae following described parcel of land:
Co~nencing at the southeast corner of said Section 12;
Thence N 89°46'01" W along the south line of said southeast quarter, a dis-
tance of 1636.44 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence N 3°54'48" E, a distance of 567.70 feet;
Thence N 0"37'42" E, a distance of 757.36 feet to a point on the north line
of the southwest quarter of said southeast quarter;
Thence N 89°47'21" W, along said north line, a distance of 280.01 feet;
Thence S 0~37'42" W, a distance of 1323.79 feet to a point on the south
line of said southeast quarter;
Thence S 89°46'01" E, along said south line, a distance of 247.48 feet to
the True Point of Beginning.
r/rapea
EXHIBIT "A"
Excl'dsion from Agricultural Preserve #14
within the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, CA
All that portion of ~e east half of the southeast quarter and the south-
west quarter of the sDutheast quarter of Section 12, Township 29 South,
Range 28 East, M.D.B.&M. in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State
of California, more p~rticularly described as follows:
Beginning at the sou~aeast corner of said Section 12;
Thence N 0°29'16" E, along the east line of said southeast quarter, a dis-
tance of 2649.01 feet to the northeast corner of the southeast quarter of
said Section 12;
Thence N 89°48'41" W, along the north line of said southeast ~arter, a
distance of 1336.43 feet to the northwest corner of the east half of the
southeast quarter of :said Section 12;
Thence S 0°31'12" W, a distance of 1323.99 feet to the northeast corner of
the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 12;
Thence N 89"47'21" W, along the north line of said southwest quarter, a
distance of 1150.69 feet;
Thence S 0°38'01" W, a distance of 1323.56 feet to the south line of the
southeast quarter of :said Section 12;
Thence S 89°46'01" E, along said south line, a distance of 2491.23 feet to
the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom ~e following described parcel of land:
CoImnencing at the southeast corner of said Section 12;
Thence N 89~46'01" W along the south line of said southeast quarter, a dis-
tance of 1636.44 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence N 3°54'48" E, a distance of 567.70 feet;
Thence N 0~37'42" E, a distance of 757.36 feet to a point on ~e north line
of the southwest quar~;er of said southeast quarter;
Thence N 89~47'21" W, along said north line, a distance o~ 280.01 feet;
Thence S 0°37'42" W, a distance of 1323.79 feet to a point on tfhe south
line of said southeast5 quarter;
Thence S 89"46'01" E, along said south line, a distance of 247.48 feet to
the True Point of Beginning.
r/rapea
PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. 2827
Our File No. Exclusion
of land from agricultural
preserve ~14
Name and address of Sponsor(s) of Project:
Wiley Hughes/Alta Engineering for Frank Reina et
218 South "H" Street, Suite 203
Bakersfield, CA 93304
al
Location of Project: 108 acres located in the southwest
quarter of Section 12, Township 29S, Range 28E. The site
is located within the city limits of Bakersfield.
Description of Project as Proposed: Exclusion of land from
agricultural preserve ~14 (Kern County). Specifically,
assessor parcels 436-062-16, 436-062-18 & 436-062-21.
4. The undersigned, having considered the matters provided in
City Council Resolution No. 107-86, City of Bakersfield does
hereby find and determine that the above described project
will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The Initial Study which comprises part of the
Negative Declaration, may be inspected at the Office
of the Planning Director at City Hall, 1501Truxtun
Avenue; Bakersfield, California. Any member of
the public is invited to provide comments on the
proposed action, in writing, on or before the 29th
day of October, 1990, at the above office. City Council
consideration of the Negative Declaration is sc'heduled
~or public hearing November 7, 1990.
Dated:
p/ndap
October 1, 1990
3~e~_e_ed~ _~Octo/~r 1, 1990
7/~FACK HARDISTY
Planning Director
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be
held before the Council[ of the City of Bakersfield at 7 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on Wednesday,
November 7, 1990, in tile Council Chambers of City Hail, 1501
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, for the purpose of
hearing any person desiring to be heard on the matter for consid-
eration by the City Council on the Negative Declaration for the
proposed exclusion of i[08 acres of land zoned residential R-1
(One Family Dwelling) from Agricultural Preserve #14. The site
is within the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 29S,
Range 28E, in norrheas[ Bakersfield.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Development Services Department
of the City of Bakersfield has found, on the basis of an Initial
Study and Environmental Assessment, that the project proposed for
a Negative Declaration, above, will not have a significant effect
on the environment. If you wish additional information concern-
ing the above, please contact the City of Bakersfield Ptanning
Department at 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, or
telephone the. departme:nt at (805) 326-3733. Please ask for Gina
Szilak, the staff planner assigned to this case.
The proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the
Office of the Planning Director of the City of Bakersfield, and
is available for public review. Members of the public are
invited to provide comment, in writing, on or before the 29th day
of October, 1990, at the above office.
Any person challenging in court the decision made at the
conclusion of such public hearing may be limited to raising only
those issues raised at such hearing or in correspondence
delivered to ~he City of Bakersfield prior to the close of such
hearing.
DATED: October 3, 1990
/s/ CAROL WILLIAMS
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
Council of the City of Bakersfield
the
bz
H: N. NDLP
FROM AGRICULTURALPRESERVE_
//
(~'14 IN KERN COUNTY, CA)
'~,-, ~,.V~ ..... ~::,_...~.,,:....:,
IN AGRICULTURE PRESERVE
TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
AGRICULTURE PRESERVE
Initial Study
_~gricultural Preserve ~14
Page 2
~149fI 14Dhl~ ~rrI513:
The project area is currently included in the agricultural ~u~m~ries of
Preserve ~14 Kern County, California. ~ne Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan land use designation for the 108 acres is Low Density
Residential; zone designation c~x~ist of R-1 (One Family Dwelling).
Surrounding zoning and lalx~ uses:
Genera]. Plan
Location Designation Z~e Designation
North O-S-S A
Land Use
Oil wells
undeveloped
South LR R-1 Oil wells
undeveloped
~t R-MP A & R-S-2½A
West R-MP A
R-MP =
LR
A =
R-S-2½A
R-1
Slopes exceeding 30% incorporated area
Mineral Petrole~ and mini~ma~ 5 acre parcel
Low Density Residential (less than 7.26 du/net acre)
A~ric~lture
= Residential S~Durban (2½ acre minimL~ lot size)
One Family Dwellilng
Oil wells
undeveloped
Oil wells
undeveloped
The existing land use of the project site is abandoned and active well pro-
duction within the Kern Bluff Oil Fields in r~rtheast Bakersfield.
PRCkT~CT DESCRIPTION:
A zone change frc~n A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One F~mily Dwelling) wes given
approval by the Bakersfield City Council ~ July 25, 1990. The 2010
General Plan provides for future low density residential growth in the
area. ~nis application is to provide cc~sistency for development and the
designation of land. The agricultural preserve status is inconsistent with
the residential general plan and zone designations. The applicant
applied for tentative tract map approval which includes residential devel-
opment of 303 lots. R~%-~l of the agricultural preserve status will be a
condition of approval for l~e tract. The project site is not under
Williamsc~ Act Contract, though it is in agriculture preserve. Notice
shall be provided to LAFOD, the California Director of Conservation and the
general public.
p/isap
INITIAL STt[~
APPfI~DIX I
Exclusion frc~ Agricultural Preserve #14
within the City of Bakersfield, Kern Cotznty, CA
PBOJfL~': Exclusion of 108 acres of-land located within the City of
Bakersfield
APPLICANT: Wiley Hughes/Alta Engineering at the request of ~rank Reina et al
LOCATION: The southeast quarter of Section 12, T.29S, R.28E ~ore accu-
rately described in the following legal description:
All that portion of the east half of the southeast quarter and the south-
west quarter of the :southeast q~rter of Section 12, Township 29 South,
Range 28 F~mt, M.D.B.&M. in the City of Bakersfield, Cot~nty Of Kern, State
of California, more ]~articularly described as follows:
Beginning at the sour-heast corner of said Section 12;
Thence N 0"29'16" E, along the east line Of said southeast quarter, a dis-
rance of 2649.01 feet to the northeast corner of the southeast quarter of
said Section 12;
Thence N 89"48'41" W,. along the north line of said southeast quarter, a
distance of 1336.43 i-'eet to the northwest corner of the east half of the
southeast quarter of said Section 12;
Thence S 0"31'12" W, a distance of 1323.99 feet to the northeast corner of
the southwest c~rter of the southeast c2~rter of said Section 12;
Thence N 89"47'21" W, along the north line of said southwest quarter, a
distance of 1150.69 f!eet;
Thence S 0"38'01" W, a distance of 1323.56 feet to the south line of the
southeast q,=a?ter of said Section 12;
Thence S 89"46'01" E, along said south line, a distance of 2491.23 feet to
the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrc~n the following described parcel of land:
Cc~,encing at the southeast corner of said Section 12;
Thence N 89"46'01" W along the south line of said southeft quarter, a dis-
rance of 1636.44 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Thence N 3"54'48" E, a distance of 567.70 feet;
Thence N 0"37'42" E, a distance of 757.36 feet to a point on the north line
of the southwest q,~?ter of said southeast quarter;
Thence N 89"47'21" W, along said r~rth line, a distance of 280.01 feet;
Thence S 0°37'42" W, a distance of 1323.79 feet to a point on the south
line of said southeast quarter;
The_~ce S 89"46'01" E, along said south line, a distance of 247.48 feet to
the True Point of Beginning.
Containing 108.02 acres, more or less.
~rv'I ~Ck'~*fAL CHECKLIST
(To be cc~pleted by Lead Agency)
I BACKGNOUND
Name of Proponent: Wiley Hughes Alta Engineering for Frank Reina et al
Aa~ress and Phone Number of Proponent:
218 South "H" Street, Suite 202
Bakersfield, CA 93304
3. f~te of Checklist Submittal: August 9, 1990
4. Agency Requiring (necklist: City of Bakersfield
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ~clusion of land frcm Agricultural
Preserve $14 within the City of Bakersfield, Ker~ County California
II
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets. )
1. Earth Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable ~rth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion, or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in top~Fraphy or ground surface
relief features?
X
The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, eith~_r c~ or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or E=osion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or
the bed of the Ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake?
X
X
X
X
X
1. Earth (cc~tinued)
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards
2. Air Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, ~r any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
3. Water Will the proposal r~ult in:
a. Changes in currents, or the co~rse or
direction of water movements, in either ,~rine
or fresh water?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and a~ount of surface
water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the ~m~unt of surface water in
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface w~ters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to tm ~mperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by outs
or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
I-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3. Water (continued)
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
j. Will the proposal result in water service
from any public or private entity?
4. Plant Life Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)?.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
5. Animal Life Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or
numbers of any species of.animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish,
benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wild-
life habitat?
Noise Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
YES
X
~AYBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
I-3
X
X
X
X
10.
11.
12.
13.
Light and Glare Will the proposal )roduce
new light or glare?
Land Use Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural.resource?
Risk of Upset Does the proposal involve a risk
of an explosion or the rQlease of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Population Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
Housin9 Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
Transportation/Circulation Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrains?
YES
X
I-4
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14. Public Services Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Ener~s Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excludin~l mental health)?
b~ Exposure of people t.o potential health
hazards?
YES
MAYBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
v
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
I-5
X
X
X
I-6
18.
19.
20.
Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
Recreation Will the proposal result in an
impact upon t~e guality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?.
Archaeological/Historical Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant arch-
eological or historical site, structure, object
or building?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
YES
MAYBE
X
NO
(a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, sub-
stantially 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 re-
strict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of Califo?nia history or pre-
history?
(b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is. one of which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will endure well
into the future).
(c) Does the project have impacts which are in-
dividually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate re-
sources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
(d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
X
I-7
III.
IV.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Date
p/ai .1
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because revisions in the project plans or proposals made by
or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration
is released for public review (or conditions of project approval) would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence
before the city that the project as revised (or conditioned may have a
significant effect on the environment and that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT~_~SP_OR.T is requir~.7
September 25, 1990 ~~-~ ~.Sign~.~,~¢..-
For Jack Hardisty, Planning Director
(10/89)
INITIAL STUDY
APPEgDIX I
Exclusion fro~ .Agricultural Preserve ~14
%~ithin the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, CA
Explanations to all "yes" and "maybe" answers.
II. ~N¥ I RDS~i~TkL IMPAC~?S
1. Earth
c. Yes - The land if; presently undeveloped. Zone and land use desig-
nations provide for residential development. It is the intent of the
current property owner to build single family homes on-site.
3. Water
b. Maybe - The project would result in a change in absorption rates,
drainage patterns or rate and amount of surface ~ter runoff because
urban development requires construction of impervious overcoverings
and storm water drainage to sewers or sumps. A drainage plan will be
supplied to the City Public Works Department as part of the subdivi-
sion process.
j. Yes - An environmental review will be done on the formation of an
assessment district and construction of a water main to be owned and
operated by California Water Service Co. Previous land use and zoning
~Dproval have cc~plied with the CEQAprocess.
4. Plant Life
a. & c. Maybe - Plant species are grassland and valley scrub.
Residential developm(~t would introduce new species similar to a mani-
cured urban landscap~.ng.
5. Animal Life
a. & b. Maybe - The ~mbitat is native to an undeveloped area. %ctive
and abandoned kit ~ox dens were found on-site. The San Joaquin kit
fox is a federally-listed endangered species. ~mitigation fee and
habitat conservation plan have been initiated by the City o~
Bakersfield to address the reduction of habitat and threat to native
animal life (see a~tached advisory notice).
d. Maybe - Existing wildlife habitat may be reduced. The current use
is oil well production and storage. The site may be nome to the San
Joaquin kit fox, a federally listed endangered species. (See a. & b.
above.)
Appe_n~ ix I
Agricultural Preserve $14
Page 2
6. -Noise
b. ~v~;be - Future residential development will be introduced into a
traditional oil well production area. Well structures on site may not
be abandoned at time residential building occurs. There may be noise
associated with the pumping structures adjacent to future residential
uses.
7. Light & Glare
Maybe - The proposed development will introduce lights for streets and
residential development.
8. ~_and Use
Yes - Removal of agricultural preserve designation and approval of the
tentative tract will result in residential development of the area.
This will substantialiy alter the present use, undeveloped oil produc-
tion related.
10. Risk of Upset
Ma~,;be - Hazardous substab, es may be associated with oil production
activity. A soil study was performed and found adequate by the City's
Ha~mrdous Waste Division. Cc~ditions to mitigate conflict have been
reo,~,LLended by the department for tract map approval until full aban-
donment of the oil wells occurs.
11. Population
Maybe - Residential development will introduce urban densities to a
site that is not currently inhabited.
12. Housin9
Maybe - The proposal may create a demand for additional residential
development in the area. The land use designations are consistent
with residential development.
14. Public Services
16.
a. - f. Maybe - Tt~ proposal is to remove a designation that is no
longer consistent with the land use policies. The removal of agricu-
ltural preserve designation will facilitate residential development.
Public services will be required to serve this area.
Utilities
a. - f. Maybe - The removal of ag preserve status and the anticipated
residential development will result in a need for new systems.
Appendix I
~gricultural Preserve #14
Page 3
i7. Human Health
b. Maybe - The proximity of residential development to oil pumps and
oil production equipment may expose people to potential health
hazards. Adequate buffers and c(~nditions regarding standards for oil
related production will be required by the fire department's hazardous
materials division for final tract map approval. Buffers will be also
include unbuildahle .lots until wells are abandoned to Department Of
Oil & Gas Specification.
18. Aesthetics
Maybe - Oil well pumps adjacent to a residential area may create a
vis~l ly unappealing neighborhood. It is anticipated that all pumps
will be abandoned and dismantled, but not lime for such action has
been set.
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
The proposed removal of land frcm agricultural preserve status will provide
consistency in terms of land use, zoning, and proposed future development.
The land is within Bakersfield city limits, does not have any agricultural
related uses, and has a history of oil production. Removal of this desig-
nation is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
Proposed land uses were previously evaluated for environmental impacts as
part of land use and zone designation approval process. Actual subdivision
layout and design considerations are part of tract map consideration.
Environmental documents associated with these projects are on file at the
Bakersfield City Planning Department, 1501 Truxtun Ave., Bakersfield, CA
93301.
p/aiap.8