HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 19-90RESOLUTION NO. 19-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS AND
ADOPTING THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
2010 GENERAL PLAN SUBJECT TO THE
CHANGES REFLECTED IN EXHIBIT C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of
Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65351
of the Government Code, concluded its public hearings on October
24, 1989 to consider the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan, and by Resolution No. 41-89 recommended adoption to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
is described as follows:
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
encompasses an area of 408 square miles in Kern
County, including the City of Bakersfield. The
plan is a policy document designed to give long-
range guidance to those making decisions
affecting the character and future land uses in
the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. It
represents the official statement of the
community's physical development as well as its
economic, social and environmental growth.
The Metropolitan 2010 General Plan gives an
overall statement of purpose and organization of
the document from which five separate objectives
can be delineated as follows:
To conform with Section 65300 of the California
Planning and Zoning Law which requires cities
and counties to adopt a comprehensive, long-
term general plan for their development.
To provide guidelines for decisions affecting
the character and future land uses in the
plan area.
To provide an official statement of the
communlty's physical development as well as
its economic, social and environmental goals.
To clarify and articulate local government's
intention with respect to the rights and
expectations of the general public, property
owners and prospective investors and business
interests.
5. To communicate what is expected of the
private sector with respect to the plan; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
is a joint City of Bakersfield/County of Kern General Plan for
the Metropolitan Bakersfield area; and
WHEREAS, the Bakersfield City Council, in accordance
with the provisions of Government Code Section 65351, held
public hearings on December 14, December 27, 1989, and January 24,
1990 to consider the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Kern County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) has found the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
to be consistent with Airports Land Use Plan (ALUP), if the fol-
lowing changes are incorporated into the plan:
1. Existing land use or zoning in the area bounded by
Norris Road, North Chester Avenue, Airport Drive, and
Roberts Lane be established as the General Plan land
use density designation, rather than increasing the
intensity of residential use in this area.
Document should include strong policy statement to
maintain the protection provided by the Intensive
Agriculture designation at the north end of the
runways..
3. Goals and policies should be added to the document to
ensure that airports are protected from incompatible
land uses.
4. The Casa Loma Specific Plan should be reflected in
the 2010 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
responds to the Kern County Airport Land Use Commission suggested
changes as follows:
Approval of the project in no way increase the poten-
tial of the planned land use southeast of the airport
beyond that designated on the County's current
adopted Land Use Element.
The area in question southeast of Meadows Field is
largely developed with a mixture of single-family
residences and apartments. A significant intensifi-
cation of development is very unlikely.
The area on the north end of Meadows Field's runways
is designated Intensive Agriculture and strong policy
exists within the text to protect all prime agric-
ultural land from conversion to urban development.
-2-
4. Policy has been added to the text to protect all the
airports from incompatible land use development.
5. The Casa Loma Specific Plan was incorporated as is
into the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
Policies of the 2010 Plan are designed to control
development incorporating the appropriate standards
to assure compliance with adopted noise standard.
WHEREAS, the plan recommended for approval by the City
Council incorporates responses to input received at public
hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Kern County Board of Supervisors conducted
a public hearing on February 5, 1990 to consider public input;
and
WHEREAS, the Kern County Board of Supervisors in
response to public input and staff recommendations adopted
Resolution 90-091 on February 5, 1990 recommending changes to the
plan and adoption by the City Council; and
WHEREAS for the above-described plan, an initial study
was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
considered for certification by the Planning Commission and
Planning Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS by Resolution No. 42-89, on October 24, 1989,
the Planning Commission/Planning Advisory Committee recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS by Resolution No. 204-89, on December 14, 1989,
the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS by Resolution No. 90-091, on February 5, 1990
the Kern County Board of Supervisors recommended certification of
the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS tile rules and regulations relating to the
preparation and adoption of Environmental Impact Reports as set
forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City
of Bakersfield Resolution 107-86 have been duly followed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City
of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. All required public notices have been given.
-3-
3. The proposed general plan adequately addresses Kern
County Airport Land Use Commission concerns.
4. Findings required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and displayed in Appendix A (attached) are
hereby incorporated by reference.
5. Specifically identified benefits of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as a comprehensive planning
document outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. A statement
of overriding considerations as set forth in Exhibit B (attached)
is hereby adopted as part of project approval.
6. The Draft Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan,
with proposed revisions as shown in the October 1989 version rec-
ommended by the Planning Commission and Planning Advisory
Committee and changes made by this Council in the course of the
public hearing on said Plan, as reflected in Exhibit "C", and
mitigation measures as set forth in Exhibit A, is hereby adopted.
.......... 000 ..........
- 4 -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield on
MAR ? 1990 , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS; EDWARDS, DeMOND, SMITH, BRUI, INI PETERSON, McDERMOtt', SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ~A/~ '
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: /~o~
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMSERS ~OA,'~'
CITY CLERK and E~-~0~ficlo ~lerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
CLARENCE E.
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
ARTHUR J. S~n~'~IEI~D
CITY ATTORNE~ of the~ity of Bakersfield
pjt
r/rcc2010
EXHIBIT A
IMPACFS, MITIGATION ~3~%~RES AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
The California Environmental Quality Act (Guideline Section 15091) requires that
no public agency approve a project for which an Environmental I~pact Report
(EIR) has been completed which identifies o~e or more significant environ-mental
effects of the project unless the agency makes written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rational
for each finding. The possible findings are listed as follows:
ae
Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Be
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and shouldbe adopted
by such agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations mke infeasible the miti-
gation measures or project's alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
In the following table, each environmental effect (impact) in need of mitigation
is listed, followed by the appropriate mitigation and a delineation of the find-
ing which applies (A, B, or C above). Following each impact is the page number
of the Final EIR where a full discussion of impact can be found. Mitigation
measures are numbered for reference purposes.
SLYMARY OF PROJE[~ IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASLrRES AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
IMPACTS MITIGATION FINDINGS
Biological Resources
Implementation of the
proposed General Plan
will extend urban devel-
opment into locations
where sensitive plants/
animals are known to
occur. (2-213)
1) The City and County will A
continue to develop and
implement the Habitat
(]onservation Plan.
2)
Consideration of using the
Kern Water Bank for the
preservation of habitat
areas.
3)
Restriction of access to
habitat areas by creation
of a native trail along the
Kern River.
Exhibit; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 2
October 1989
IMPACreS MITIGATION FINDINGS
Agricultural Soils
I~olementation of the pro-
posed General Plan will
result in the loss of
existing agricultural uses.
( 2-245 )
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Continually updating the
data base on the extent of
prime agricultural soils in
the planning area.
Designating prime agricul-
tural land categories and
zoning these areas for
agricultural usage.
Providing public information
on economic incentives avail-
able to aid in the preser-
vation of agricultural land.
The Land Use Map allows con-
version of agricultural land
to the extend that is incon-
sistent with goals, policies
and objectives of the Soils
and Agricultural Element.
The plan should be revised in
one of two w~ys as follows:
(a) All agricultural areas
should be designated R-1A, R-EA,
or (b) revise the language of
general plan such that pre-
servation of agricultural land
is not an overriding goal.
Consideration of the Soil
Conservation Service's class-
fication system as a tool in
setting priorities for oon-
serving farmland.
The plan should encourage the
infilling of the existing urban
area, include small parcels of
farmland that have become
surrounded by urban uses.
To reduce potential conflicts
with agricultural/urban uses,
Land Use should be modified to
permit extension of urban growth
to that involving contiguous
parcels.
A
A,C
A
A
A
A
A
Exhibit; Impacts, Mitigatio~ Measures and B~quired Findings Page 3
October 1989
Agricultural Soils
(continued)
Air Quality
I~plementation of the
General Plan will result
in an increase in popu-
lar ion/development. This
increase will have signi-
ficant adverse impacts on
air quality. (2-281)
Aesthetics
n)
12)
MITIGATION
The consideration of an
ordinance establishing the
transference of development
rights and the establishment
of a means to purchase land
for a land trust, or other
methods of preservation.
Preparation of soils, erosion
and sedimentation report for
those areas identified as
highly erodiblebySoils Cc~-
servation Service.
13) Implement the Transportation
System Management program for
Metropolitan Bakersfield.
14) Promote mixed land uses and
centers concept.
15) Disperse urban service centers.
16) Require dust abatement measures
during grading.
17) Promote Level of Service "C"
quality of traffic flow.
18) Promote logical growth patterns.
Development in accordance 19)
with General Plan will con-
vert open space to urban
uses for approximately 70
square miles in the plan
area. (2-294) 20)
Adopt Hillside Management
Ordinance to regulate devel-
opment in the northeast
foothills.
Utilize redevelopment techniques
to assemble land parcels and
provide open space in the urban
area.
FINDINGS
A
A
A
A
A,C
A
A
A
A
A
21 ) Implement the Kern River Plan. A
Exhibit; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 4
October 1989
IMPACTS
Aesthetics
(continued)
Geologic Hazards
Ultimate build-out of the
plan will expose additional
persons to groundshaking
hazards which exist region-
wide. ( 2-305 )
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
29)
30)
MITIGATION
Consider water recharge area
for open space
Rezone abandoned landfill areas
and resource extraction sites
as open space or resource use.
Hillside ordinance to be pre-
dicated on acceptable densities
depending on the severity of
the slope.
Incorporate lands in the Habitat
Conservation Plan into the
planning areas open space network.
Investigate the feasibility
of scenic route designations
in the planning area.
Ensure projects along the
Kern River conduct a view-
shed analysis to mitigate
disruption of public views.
Establish an architectural
design review component in the
zoning ordinance or building
permit process.
The 2010 plan proposes 39
programs which protect the
general public from geologic
hazards.
Conduct geotechnical review
and/or literature review to
establish recency of the
Deepwell, Edison East, Edison
West, Elk Hills, Jasmine, Mt.
Poso, McVan, and Pleito Thurst
Fault. Data to be incorporated
into planning, zoning and site
plan review processes.
FINDINGS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E~d%ibit; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 5
October 1989
Geologic Hazards
continued )
Nozse
Ii~01ementation of 2010 Plan
will result in a general
increase in noise levels.
(2-323)
MITIGATION
31)
32)
33)
Document areas subject to earth-
quake induced landslides may
pose a problem and include these
areas on the Geologic Hazards
Map.
Clarify whether the deve-
lopment and nl~intenance of
evacuation plans for
critical facilities is
required or merely encouraged
in damn inundation areas.
Conduct necessary subsurface
investigation and/or literature
review to more accurately
document areas where potential
liquefaction could occur.
35)
36)
37)
39)
Noise attenuation measures will
be required in subdivisions
where a significant noise impact
is projected to exist.
Noise attenuation measures along
state highways will be actively
pursued.
Noise attenuation measures along
rail lines will be pursued.
Exterior and interior noise
standard attainment will be
enforced for all new residential
development.
The city will consider noise
control and abatement.
Noise control measures will be
incorporated in conditions of
approval for cc~mercial,
industrial and loud recreational
sources.
FINDINGS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Exhibit; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 6
October 1989
IMPACTS
Noise
(~ontinued)
Cultural and Historic
Potential loss of cultural
and historic resources.
(2-46)
p/sr2010a
40)
41 )
MITIGATION
Noise performance standards will
be placed on C~r~ercial and
and industrial operations in
close proximity to residential
development.
Develop Historical Resources
Element for City of Bakersfield.
A
A,C
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan provides
comprehensive policies which assist in urban growth
management in the metropolitan area. The plan provides
for diverse housing opportunities, supportive infra-
structure, and conservation of local resources through
a cooperative planning effort between local agencies.
The balancing of community values which can occur under
the 2010 Plan as a comprehensive planning document out-
weigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
EXHIBIT C
Council approved changes to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan policy document and associated maps. Originator of change
is shown in parenthesis (i.e. City Council (CC), Kern County
Board of Supervisors (B.O.S.), staff (S)).
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
Page I-2, third paragraph - Change 405 square miles to 408
square miles. (S)
CHAPTER II - LAND USE ELEMENT
Page II-2, second paragraph - Change 259,200 acres to 261,120
acres. (S)
Page II-3, Table II-1 - Change Agriculture/Open Space acreage
from 195,533 to 197,453. (S)
Change total project area from 259,200 acres (405 square
miles) to 261,120 acres (408 square miles). (S)
Page II-12, - Reword first paragraph under BASIC PRINCIPLES
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PERIPHERAL AREAS as follows:
New development on the periphery of urban Bakersfield will be
focused in three (3) new mixed use activity centers located
in the southwest, northwest and northeast. It is expected
that the southwest center would include a mix of professional
office and retail uses, moderate density residential, and
would filter outwards to lower suburban-type densities.
Although depicted in Figure II-3 in policy concept form,
actual land use designations for the southwest center and the
area around it will be determined through a more detailed
land use and environmental analysis. In depth analysis of
the southwest center is warranted due to its growth
potential and its related impacts, impact on prime
agricultural lands, and potential to impact the Kern River
corridor resource. ~e northwest center will contain retail
commercial, light industrial, moderate and high density
residential, and will be surrounded by low and estate resi-
dential densities. The center in the northeast will include
retail commercial, professional office, moderate and high
density residential, and will filter outwards to lower
densities. The plan encourages that each center: (a) focus
on a major open space amenity, such as a park or water body;
(b) link land uses to the Kern River where possible; and (c)
exhibit pedestrian sensitivity with appropriate design
applied to encourage pedestrian activity. In addition to
these three activity centers, peripheral development will be
focused in smaller community centers, such as in the
Greenfield and Lamont areas, with local-serving commercial
services and residential uses. (S)
Exhibit C
Page 2
Page II-14, - add footnote wording after first sentence fol-
lowing *as follows: Includes assumption of development of
southwest center referenced in figure II-3.
Page II-30, add Policy #84 - Word as follows:
In the County, all residential developments that provide com-
plete public infrastructure improvements including community
water distribution and sewage collection and treatment
systems may be permitted a density increase up to 20
percent. All land division activities shall be consistent
with this provision (I-l). (B.O.S.)
LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGES - Figure II-2
- Change LR to GC for that property located at the southwest
corner of White Lane and Old River Road, LR to GC for that
property located at the northeast corner of Pacheco and Buena
Vista, LR to HMR for that property on Pacheco east of Buena
Vista northeast of the P.G.&E. pipeline easement, HMR to LR
for the property on the northwest and southwest corner of the
easterly extension of an unnamed proposed street and Old
River Road, LR to HMR for the triangular property located on
the west side of Old River Road at the intersection of the
Buena Vista canal, and LR to LMR on the property at the
southeast intersection of Mountain Vista Drive and White Lane.
- Change the LR designation to GC at the northwest corner of
Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive south of the tower lines
and east of the LI. (CC)
- Change the D2 designation to LR south of 20th Street to the
alley, between "A" Street and "B" Street. Change D2 to HR
for the area north of 18th Street to the alley north of 19th
Street, between "A" and "B" Streets. Change D2 to HR for the
area south of 20th Street to the alley, between "B" Street
and "C" Street and for the area south of 18th Street to the
alley, between "A" Street and "C" Street. (CC)
- Change the GC designation to HMR south of Columbus Street at
its intersection with Wenatchee Avenue. (CC)
- Approve SR for the area located 1/4 mile north of Rosedale
Hwy., 1/2 mile west of Nord Road. (B.O.S.)
- Change HR to OC for the lots adjacent to the south side of
Loustalot Lane, east and west of Haybert Court. (CC)
- Change HMR to GC for the area located at 12312 Main Street
(in Lamont). This area is located approximately 3/8 of a
mile north of Houghton Road, on the west side of Weedpatch
Highway. (CC)
- Change all the ER to RR located in the NW/4 of Section 19,
T31S, R28E, M.D.B.&M. (B.O.S.)
Exhibit C
Page 3
CHAPTER III
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Page III-13, second paragraph under COLLECTORS - Delete "...
with volumes less than 80 percent of capacity." Place period
after the word "better". (CC)
Reword last sentence as follows: "On streets where the
existing level of service is below "C", special consideration
to identify mitigation measures to prevent and/or delay degra-
dation of the existing level of service would be required."
(CC)
Page III-18, Policy #30 - Add the following words after the
word "expressway": ... and an east-west freeway (178) are ...
(B.O.S.)
Page III-19, Policy #36 - Change the wording following the
phrase "...or when the existing level of service is below
"C", to read as follows: ...prevent where possible further
degradation due to new development or expansion of existing
development with a three part mitigation program: adjacent
right-of-way dedication, access improvements and/or an area-
wide impact fee. The area-wide impact fee would be used
where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible
due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is
part of a larger project, such as freeways, which will be
built at a later date. (CC)
Page III-25, add Policy #13 - Support efforts to develop
high-speed rail facilities to service the plan area (1-12).
(B.O.S.)
Page III-26, add Implementation #12 - Local agencies should
cooperate in studies to pursue the establishment of high-
speed rail service for the plan area, including potential
routes and terminal locations. (B.O.S.)
Page III-38, add Implementation Measure #5 - Consider the use
of avigation easements for discretionary projects to provide
for orderly development and as a means of preventing new
noise and safety impacts. (B.O.S.)
CIRCULATION ELEMENT MAP CHANGES - Figure III-6
- Remove collector designation for street shown east of Old
River Road, north of Camino Media. (CC)
- T28S R27E (B.O.S)
Section 30: Remove secondary alignment parallel to and east
of State Route 99 in the SE/4. It connects too close to a
major highway intersection.
Exhibit C
Page 4
Section 30: Provide secondary alignment along the west sec-
tion line in the SW/4 to provide continuation parallel to and
west of State Route 99 beyond plan limit.
Section 36: Correct connection of North Chester Extension/
James Road to reflect actual intersection.
- T29S R25E (B.O~S.)
Section 26: Delete east/west midsection secondary.
- T29S R26E (B.O.,S.)
Section 10: North/south midsection secondary truncates at
Olive Drive, not Santa Fe Way.
- T29S R27E (B.O.S.)
Section 4: Show Golden State Road as a secondary and extend
to Seventh Standard Road.
Section 7: Secondary in northeast quadrant should curve to
stay away from canals.
Section 10: Golden State Road should be shown as secondary.
Section 11: Olive Drive should be a major.
Section 12: Relocate secondary in lower portion of section
to Decatur Street, north of canal.
- T29S R28E (B.O.S)
Section 7: Add an east/west to north/south secondary loop in
the northeast quadrant.
Section 7: Connect southern secondary to Roberts Lane/Manor
Street interchange.
Section 8 and 9:: Add east/west to north/south secondary loop
from southern portion to Section 9 midsection line.
Sections 34, 35, and 36: Show Edison Highway as major.
Section 36: North/south to east/west secondary in northeast
quadrant should curve to avoid substation at midsection.
- T29S R29E (B.O.S.)
Section 5: Correct substandard curve alignment for east/west
secondary.
Exhibit C
Page 5
Section 21: East/west secondary between Edison Road and
Comanche Drive shown on Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan but
not on 2010.
Sections 29 and 32: Delete north/south midsection secondary
(not shown on Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan).
Section 31: Show Edison Highway as major.
Section 36: Relocate north line secondary south and contour
below hill.
- T30S R25E (B.O.S.)
Sections 25 and 30: Reduce south line major to secondary and
do not extend west of Section 30.
- T30S R26E (B.O.S)
Section 30: Reduce south line major to secondary and curve to
connect to west line secondary.
- T30S R28E (B.O.S)
Sections 15 and 16: Correct White Lane/Muller Road alignment.
Section 16: Washington Street return to midsection line at
south line too severe to meet design standards.
Section 17: Show north/south deviation from midsection line
to accommodate runway in accordance with Casa Loma Specific
Plan.
T30S R29E (B.O.S)
Section 3: Show secondaries on north and west lines in
accordance with Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan.
- T31S R28E (B.O.S)
Section 6: Delete major along south line and replace with
secondary along south line of SE/4.
Major and secondary alignments extending to Interstate 5,
where there are no bridge crossings, should be eliminated.
Exhibit C
Page 6
CHAPTER V - CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Page V-35 - The first sentence of the last full paragraph on
that page should be changed to read:
Planning for compliance with the federal/state ambient air
quality standards has been assigned to the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD), who, with the assistance of the Kern
Council of Governments (Kern COG), prepares the Nonattainment
Area Plan/State Attainment Plan (NAP/AAP) for the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. (B.O.S.)
Page V-38, add Policy #29 - Encourage the use of
"teleconferencing" and other state-of-the-art technology as a
means of reducing daily business related traffic (I-4). (B.O.S.)
CHAPTER VIII - SAFETY ELEMENT
Page VIII-35 - Delete Policy #1. (CC)
Reword Policy #2 to read as follows: "Establish and maintain
standards with regard to Implementation item #3 on Page
VIII-37 (I-l, I--2, I-3)." (CC)
Renumber policies appropriately. (CC)
Page VIII-37 - Reword Implementation item #1 to read as
follows: "City funding of Police and Fire operations and
maintenance costs will be provided through City General Fund
Tax Revenues." (CC)
Reword Implementation item #2 to read as follows: Funding
for Police and Fire equipment and facilities will be facili-
tated through bond issues and/or development fees and/or land
dedications and/or assessment districts. (CC)
CHAPTER X - PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Page X-9, Figure X-4 - Update to show current water purveyor
service areas. (S)
Page X-12 - The Urban Water Management Plan (1985),
by I.D.4 will be included as an appendix to the 2010
General Plan. (B.O.S.)
prepared
Reword Implementation #2 to read as follows: "Implement the
Urban Water Management Plan prepared by I.D.4 (1985) (see
appendices). (B.O.S.)
Exhibit C
Page 7
Page X-32, first paragraph - Reword as follows: "Solid waste
collection services (residential and commercial) are provided
within the city by the City Sanitation Division and con-
tracted private haulers and in the unincorporated area by a
county franchise hauler. All solid waste generated in the
area is disposed of in county-operated landfills." (S)
CHAPTER XI
PARKS ELEMENT
Page XI-8, Policy #3 - Reword as follows: "Require develop-
ers to dedicated land, provide improvements and/or in-lieu
fees to serve the needs of the population in newly developing
areas (I-l)." (B.O.S.)
APPENDICES
Add the following appendices:
F. Urban Water Management Plan prepared by I.D.4 (1985).
(B.O.S)
G. Kern County Zoning Consistency Matrix (B.O.S.)
p/2010ec