HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3983ORDINANCE NO. '3 g 8 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 'TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNBC~PAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO.
102-30 BY CHANGING THE 2:ONING FROM M-3 (HEAVY
INDUSTR, IAL) TO M-2 (REGIONAL MANUFACTURING) ZONE
ON 20 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH
SIDE OF ROSEDALE HIGHWAY', WEST OF STATE ROUTE
99. (ZC P00-0410)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17
of the Municipal Code of the City of BakersfieBd, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
a petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties being annexed to the City of
Bakersfield generally located along the north side of Rosedale Highway, west of State Route 99;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, did set MONDAY, July
3% 2000, at the hour of i 2:15 p.m. and THURSDAY, August 3, 2000, at the hour of 5:30 p.m. and
continued to THURSDAY, August 17, 2000, at the hour of 5:30 p.m. ali in the Council Chambers
of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfiead, California, as the time and place for a public hearing
before said Planning Commission on said application and accompanying proposed environmental
document, and notice of [he public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Seventeen of
the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 81-00 on August 17, 2000, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of an ordinence amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to
approve M-2 (Regional Manufacturing) zone as delineated on attached map marked Exhibit "B", by
this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by the Planning
Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make several
general and specific findings of fact which warranted a negative declaration of environmental impact
and changes in zoning of the subject property i=rom M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to M-2 (Regional
Manufacturing) zone and the Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and
correct; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the prepa~cation and adoption of
Negative Declarations, as set forth in CEQA arid City of Bakersfield's CEQA implementation
Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, the Planning Commission and this Council; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the proposal was advertised and posted in
accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
The above recitals and findings are true and correct and constitute the findings q.f-::.
the Planning Commission in this matter. ~:.
10.
11.
12.
13.
All required notices have been giv~;n.
The provisions of the California E'nvironmenta~ Quality Act (CEQA) have been
followed.
Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration was prepared and sent to responsible agencies and property owners
within 300 feet of the project site. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this
project in accordance with CEQA.
The pubtic necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice justify the
recommended change of zone to M-2 (Regional Manufacturing) on 20 acres located
generally along the north side of Rosedale Highway, west of State Route 99.
The project site is designated HI (Heavy industrial) on the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan Land Use Plan
The recommended zone change is compatible with the surrounding uses.
The recom mended zone change is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan.
That the applicant by prior agreement agreed to comply with all adopted mitigation
measures contained within the Negative Declaration for this project.
That Zone Change P00-0410 is h~.raby approved as recornmended by staff with
mitigation measures adopted in the; Negative Declaration.
That Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield be amended by changing the land use zoning to M-2 (Regional
Manufacturing) on 20 acres on Map No. 102-23 attached hereto as Exhibit "B", of
that certain property in said City of Bakersfield as described in Exhibit "C" herein
attached,
That Zone Change No. P00-0410, as outlined above, is hereby recommended for
approval with mitigation and conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A".
That concern was raised regarding potentia~ impacts from offsite industrial uses that
may occur at the project site,
follows:
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ~T ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct.
The Negative Declaration Ls hereby approved and adopted.
Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipall Code of the City of
Bakersfield be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use
zoning of that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property
is shown on the map marked Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and are more specifically described in attached Exhibit "C ".
Such zone change is hereby made subject to the conditions of approval
lis'fced in attached Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code
and shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregeing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bailersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on SEP 2 7 2000 , by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, GREEN, SULL. IVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER ~ O ~--
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
APPROVED
CiTY CLERK and Ex Offi~o Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
MAYOR of the City/of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
BART THILTGEN
City Attorney
R3O:paS
S:\ZoneChange\00-0410\Resolutions\ozc-cc.wpd
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Mitigation Measuresfor
Zone GhangePO0-0410
If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County
Coroner has been notified and has ewlluated the remains. If any other
archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all work shall
stop unti~ the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian.
(Mitigation)
The developer shall submit a "will serve" letter from the City o.f Bakersfield
Fairhaven District with the submission of a site plan review application. (Water
Resources)
If a retail project is submitted for site plan review, the applicant shall obtain
approval of site layout and apply public; safety measures consistent with industry
standards as determined by the City's Director of Environmenta~ Services.
S:\ZoneChange\00-0410\exha.wpd
.
CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD
ZONING MAP I02-23
SEC 23 1: 29s R. 27E
LEGEND
EXHIBIT "C"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
ZONE CHANGE P00-0410
A parcel of land being a portion of the south 1/2 of Section 23 and a portion of the
northwest 1/4 of Section 26, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., M.D.M., County of Kern, State of California,
more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north 1/4 corner of said Section 26 shown as a found monumented
corner per Caltrans right of way map for State Route V1 ~KER-58 (at Mile Post 51.62), said
corner, by calculated conversion, being 2,327,,410. 530 feet North and 6,249,378.741 feet
East per California Coordinate System (N.A.D. 83) Zone 5;
Thence N 89° 46' 00" W, along the north gine of said Section 26, a distance of 1,303.68
feet to intersect the northerly prolongation of the east right of way line of Gibson Street (Co.
Rd. No.1270, being 40 feet in width);
Thence S 00° 59' 30" W, along said prolongation line, 30.00 feet to the point of intersection
of the east right of way line of Gibson Street and the south right of way line of Rosedale
Highway (State Route VI-KER-58) said point being an angle point on the existing corporate
boundary of the City of Bakersfield and is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence (1) departing from said corporate boundary, N 00° 59' 30" E, along the
prolongation of said east right of way fine (Gibson Street), 30.00 feet to intersect the south
line of said Section 23;
Thence (2) N 00° 10' 00' W, 80.00 feet t~ intersect the north right of way fine of Rosedale
Highway (State Route VbKER-58);
Thence (3) S 89° 46' 00" E, along said north right of way line, 381.44 feet to an angle point
thereon;
Thence (4) S 88° 35' 50" E, along said right of way line, 169.61 feet to meet the southerly
prolongation of the west line of Parcel "A" of Parcel Map No. 5907 Filed for Record in Book
26 of Parcel Maps, Page 35 in the office of the Kern County Recorder;
Thence (5) N 00° 10' 00" W, 893,68 feet to the northwest corner of said Parcel "A";
Thence (6) S 89° 46' 00" E, 753.79 feet to the northeast corner of said Parcel "A";
Thence (7) S 89° 47' 05" E, along the north line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3731 Filed
for record in Book 17 of Parcel Maps, Page 66, in the office of the IKem County Recorder, a
Page [ of 2
distance of 470.53 feet to the northeast corner thereof;
Thence (8) S 00° 06' 05" E, 416.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel 1, said
corner being a point on the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bakersfield;
'Thence along said existing corporate boundary line for courses (9) through (13) as follows:
Thence (9) N 89° 47' 05" W, 470.53 feet;
Thence (10) S 00° 06' 05" E, 554.20 feet to meet the south 1/4 corner of said Section 23
(common with said norl:h 1/4 corner of section 26);
Thence (11 ) S 00° 19' 08" W, along the mid-section line of said Section 26, a distance of
48.88 feet to intersect the south right of way line of Rosedale Highway;
Thence (12) N 88° 35' 50" W, along said south right of way line, 924.04 feet;
Thence (13) N 89° 46' 00" W, along said right of way line, 380.15 feet to the TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING ALL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Page 2 of 2
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
County of Kern )
PAMELA A. MCCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City CBerk of the City of Bakersfield;
and that on the 28TM day of September , 2000 she posted on the Bulletin Board
at City Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance INo. 3983 , passed
by the Bakemfield City Council at a meeting held on the 27TM day of September
2000 and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 102-30 BY CHANGING THE
ZONING FROM AN M-3 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONE TO A M-
2(REGIONAL MANUFACTURING) ZONE ON 20 ACRES GENERALLY
LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SLIDE OF ROSEDALE HIGHWAY, WEST
OF STATE ROUTE 99. (P00-0410)
/s/PAMELA A. MCCARTHY
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
,_----~.,~ ~-.-L-__~/E~L ......
DEPUT~'~Dity Clerk
S:\Document\FORMS~AOP.ORD,wpd
September 28, 2000
iNITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study of the
possible environmental effects of the following described project and has determined that
a Negative Declaration is appropriate. This dstermination has been made according to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Bakersfield CEQA implementation Procedures.
PROJECT TITLE: Zone Change P00-0410
APPLICANT:
Crown Rosedale associates, LLC
20101 S. W. Birch Street, Suite 260
Flewport Beach, CA 92660
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Zone Change No. P00-0410 to prezone the site from M-3 to M-2.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is the subject of an annexation that is in process. The site is known as City
Annexation No. 412 (Rosedale No. 8) and was submitted to LAFCO and is being
reviewed by LAFCO,
PROJECT LOCATION:
The project site is generally located along the north side of Rosedale Highway, west of
State Route 99.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The site is generally undeveloped. The area is within the urban area of the City of
Bakersfield and within the City's Sphere of Influence Boundary. The area east, west and
south of the site is developed with commercial uses. While the area to the north is
developed with industrial uses.
S:%ZoneChange\00~410\Environmental Dcx;\lnitial Study Proj Desc.wpd
ZONE CHANGE
P00-0410
M-3
M-2
COMMERCIAL
STREET
M-2 ~
M-1
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY
THOMAS AVENUE
23 ,,
MARRIO'Fi' DRIVE
C-2
C-2
BURR STREET
/ M-1
~o
'.
SCALE ~N F~ET '
T29S, R27E
/
/
/
bJ
APPENI;)IX G
Environmenta~ Checklist Form
Project Title: Zone Chanc~e P00-0410
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of BakersfieBd, 1715 Chester Avenue,
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner, (661) 326-
3733.
Project Location: GeneraIBy alone the north side of Rosedale Highway, west of State
Route 99.
m
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Crown Rosedale Associates, LLC, 20101
S.W. Birch StreE;t, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
6, General Plan Designation: Hi 7. Zoning:
8.
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its imptementation, Attach
additional sheets if necessary.) Zone Chancle from M-3 (Heavy industrial) zone to M-2
(General Manufactudncl) zona on approximately 20 acres.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The area east, west and south of the site is developed with commercial uses. While the
area to the north is dovelaDed with industrial uses.
10.
Other public a¢lencies whose approva~l is required (e.g., permits, financing
approval or participation agreement):
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTEN'I1ALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentialiy Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages:
[] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resoumes []
[] Biological Resources [] Cultural nescumes []
[] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology/'Nater Quality []
[] Mineral Resources [] Noise E22]
[] PUblic Services [] Recreation []
[] Utilities / Serviee Systems [] Mandatory ~:indings of 8ignifisance
Air Quality
Geology / Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffic
DETEIRMINATION: (TO be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaEuation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wil~ 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 have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E~R or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are! imposed upon the proposed
project, nothing further is required.
~ ~:~'_'~ June 23, 2000
Signature d~ Data
Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner
Printed name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project fails outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to polButants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and c~nstruction as well as operational impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. ff there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVll, "Earlier Analyses," may be cress~
referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EtR, or otlher CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and a(tequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legaB standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that am "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance cdteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, ff any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
3
Potentially
Sicjni~cant
impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character []
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCE.;: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importan~:e (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control distdct may be
relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
E3
E3
E3
4
Potentially
SkJni~cant
Impact
E]
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard! or contribute []
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considierable net increase E]
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non- attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (indudin9 releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant []
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial []
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
Ioca~ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natura~ community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act {including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with estabfished native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
[]
[]
5
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
E]
E]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- %Nould the project:
a Cause a substantial adverse change in the E]
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Weutd the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial []
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated []
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refe~ to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication .42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
ill) Seismic-related ground failure, including []
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ['1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ["1
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ["1
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
6
D
[]
[]
[]
E]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
E[
El
El
[]
E]
[]
E]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
S gn ticant
Impact
El
El
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the []
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the E'}
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or E3
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of E
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan E"f
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, wouBd the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or p!hysically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injun/or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
thcorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
[]
El
E!I
El
7
Potenfially
S gnificant
impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste []
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or []
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table ~evel (e.g., the
production rate of pro-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of E']
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of []
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
wou~d result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff wal:er which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additiona~
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
[]
[]
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area E'I
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of E'~
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a resu]t of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [~
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
incorporation
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
E
El
El
8
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
SkJni~cant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[] [] []
El [] []
No
impact
X, MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability' of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific p8an or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE --
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantiaB permanent ~ncrease in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within bvo
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
El [] []
[] [] []
E] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[3 [] []
[3 [] []
[3 [] []
El
D
El
E]
~3
Potentiafiy
Significant
irnpact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers ef people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
impact
XIII. PUBL1C SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
E] [] []
[] [] []
E] [] []
[] [3 []
[] [] []
[]
[]
[]
13
[]
XIV, ]RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
[3 D []
[3 [] []
El
E]
10
Potentially
Si,qni~cant
Imlpact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
impact
NO
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTAT~ONFTRAFFliC o- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantia8 increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Bevel of
service standard established by tlne county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
El [] []
E] [] []
E] [] []
E] [] []
E] [] []
E] [] []
E] [] []
[]
[]
[]
XVI. UTELITiES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicabBe Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities. the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmentaB effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlernents and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
[] [] []
[] [] []
[3 [] []
[3 [] ~
11
[]
[]
E:]
e) Reault in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the proiect's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and Bocal statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially VV]th Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation impact Impact
E] [] []
E] [] [] []
E] [] [] []
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SDGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the E'I
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 eliminate important examples of the maior
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually E"I
limited, but cumutativeiy considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
E1 [] Ei
[] [] El
[3 [] []
Revised April 18, 2000
S:~ZoneChange\00-0410~AppendixG MO's.wp,
12
APPENDIX G
Environmental Checklist Form
Response Sheet
Zone Change P00~0410
AESTHETICS
The project site is located within an area having natural slopes from 0-5%. The
area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan as visually important or "scenic". There is no
scenic vista that would be impacte. d by the construction of this project.
The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock
outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to
a state highway which is designated as "scenic". No significant impacts are noted.
There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of
the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant.
This project involves incremental growth of urban development typical of the
area. Light from development of the site will not substantially affect views in this
area either at night or daytime as the light generated is typical of urban
development. Typical development standards as required by the zoning ordinance
address the issue of light and glare. This impact is not regarded as significant.
AGRICULTURE': RESOURCES
The project does not convert 100 acres or more of any of the farmlands designated
Prime, Unique, or of Statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See
Department of Conservation Kern County Interim - Farmland 1996, sheet 2 of 3.
Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural
suitability and productivity. There are currently more than 1.6 million acres under
Williamson Act Contract in Kem County (1999), the loss of less than 100 acres is
clearly not a significant change to this resource (.00625 % of the total amount of
prime farmland under contract in Kern County). State CEQA guidelines section
15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the
Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or area wide significance. No
significant impacts are noted.
The property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor is it under Williamson Act
Contract. Properties zoned for residential development have special setback
requirements between residential structures and agricultural uses or zoning (see
Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance S~:ction 17.08.150). There is no significant impact.
There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that
will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 2
found in Metropolitan Bakersfield! which should not, by its specific nature, result
in the conversion offarmland to nonagricultural uses. The impact is not regarded
as potentially significant.
Ill AIR QUALITY
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air
pollution from vehicles which are the largest single category of air pollution in the
San Joaquin Valley. The Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality Impacts
promulgated by Southern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District, (page 16 and Section 6) list various land uses and design strategies that
reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan
requiretnents related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of
traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements,
location of commercial development in proximity to residential development are
consistent with the listed strategies. This project is subject to the full range of
local ordinances which ensure co~npliance with these air quality strategies. No
significant impacts are noted or implementation of existing ordinances and rules
will reduce impacts to less than significant.
The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 24 table 4-1
Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year,
Nox 10 tons (Guide to Assessing Mitigatioh and Air Quality Impacts). Nor is the
project within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, "Prqject screening trigger
levels for potential odor sources (,Guide to Assessing Mitigation and Air Quality
Impacts). In addition, dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII are
required for all construction in the City of Bakers field and are regarded by
Southern San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District as sufficient
mitigation to reduce PM-10 impacts to less than a siguificaa~t level.
The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the Southern San
Joaquin Valley is in nonattainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by
Southern San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Pollution from this
project was taken into consideration in previous environmental analysis which
took into account that this area would be urban. This analysis was completed for
the Metropolitan Bakemfield 201 ~D General Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report which identified the amount of urbanization and resultant air pollution
which would be generated within the general plan area. Mitigation from the Final
Environmental Impact Report was incorporated into various policies,
implementation measures and ordinances. In addition, the Southern San Joaquin
Air Pollution Control District will review this initial study for the proposed
project. However, in the absence of~ evidence in the record, it has been
determined that the impact is not regarded as significant.
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 3
There is no evidence that this project creates any pollutant "hot spot" that would
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution receptors. The only potential
"hot spots" are located at intersections which are "severely~' congested ~ There are
no adjacent intersections which are at a level of service "F" and therefore by
definition no significant pollutant "hot spot" impacts are identified for this project.
The land[ use permitted as a result of this project does not have the potential to
create ohjectionable odors. This proposal is not on the list of those land uses
generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems (for the list of projects
please see table 4-2, Southern San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). The impact is not
regarded[ as significant.
IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits
issued to the City of Bakers field hy the United State Fish and Wildlife Services
and California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the
permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay
habitat mitigation fees, excavate tinown kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to
grading. The impact is not regarded as significant. tn addition, pursuant to
Section 15064 (h) of the CEQA Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a
signific~mt effect if the change complies with a standard that meets the definition
of Section 15064 (h)(3). The adopted Metropolitan Bakers field Habitat
Conservation Plan meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). Therefore, the
proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment.
This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat
area but does fall within the Metropolitan Bakers field Habitat Conservation Plan
area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game
and the United States Wildlife Service mandates certain requirements that by
ordinance all development projects must comply. Compliance with the plan
mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level.
The project crosses no stream, either perennial or intermittent based on the United
States Geological Survey topographic sheet for the area. In addition, there are no
typical flora or fauna associated with wetlands on the site. There are no "Fedorally
Protected Wetlands" identified in~ the project area.
The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (n6ted as a wildlife corridor
in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or along a canal
which has been identified by United States Fish and WildIife Services as a
corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no evidence in the record
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 4
that the ]project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No significant
impacts are noted.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Hal~ital: Conservation Plan has been adopted as
policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts
within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled
by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and therefore will not be
in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. No significant impacts
are noted.
There are no other adopted plans 'which are applicable to this area which relate to
biological resources, see answer to IV e above.
V CULTURAL RESOURCES
There as'e no structures on the site, or there are structures/resources but no
resources are listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical
Resources Commission for listing: in the California Register of Historical
Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024. t, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et.
Seq.). Resources on site are not listed in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Section 5020.1 (k) oft]he Public Resource Code and are not found to be
significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of
the Public Resources Code.
The California Archaeological Inventory at California State University
Bakersfield will review the existing literature for archaeological resources for this
project and will indicate any required mitigation. The impact is not regarded as
significant.
This project is not located in the Shark Tooth Mountain bone bed which is the
only unique paleontological resource identified in the Mel~ropolitan Bakersfield
area. In addition, topography of the site is relatively fiat arid there is no evidence
that construction of tl~e project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No
significant impacts are noted.
There is no evidence that the project is located within an area likely to produce
human remains. The California State Inventory at California State University
Bakersfield will be consulted to review the project. If any human remains are
discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County Coroner has been notified
and has evaluated the remains. If any other archaeological artifacts are discovered
during site development, all work shall stop until the find :has been evaluated by a
qualified archaeologist or historian.
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 5
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i.
Bakersfield, located in the San Joaquin Valley, has been a seismically active area.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault
systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these
fault systems are the San Andreas, the Breckenridge-Kem County, the Garlock,
the Pond Poso and the White Wolf. There are numerous additional faults
suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active.
The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from
6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards
in the planning area involve stronl; ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction,
and earthquake induced landslides.
Future structures proposed on the project site will be constructed in accordance
with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent
seismic construction requirements in the United States), and will adhere to all
modern earthquake standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. This
will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In
addition,, because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslides
are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard.
a.ii. See answer to VI.ai.
a.iii.
Liquefaction potential is a combination of soil type, ground water depth and
seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the: three attributes
necessary to have a potentially si~;nificant impact. See also the answer to a Vii i.
a.iv. See answer to VX.a i.
The soil types prevalent on the proposed sites are listed in the Kern County
California Soil Survey for the Northwestern region. Based on the soil survey, the
project site includes soil type cajon loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The
characteristics of the soil type include somewhat excessively drained soil in on
alluvial fans. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil type and the relatively
flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion,
displacement of soils, exhibit expansion problems or limit the use of septic
systems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to
soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific
soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable
building codes in accordance wit]h the Uniform Building (52ode.
See answers to VIa i and VIa ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of
Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological
Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, tiquefactiox~
or other unique geological hazard.
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 6
d. See answer to VI b.
See answer to VI b.
VII
HAZARDS AND. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There is no evidence in the record which indicates this project (or this type of
land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any
quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential
to be a significant environmental impact.
b. See answer to VII a,
There is no evidence that this project or this category of projects has been
identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous
emissions at a level which is potentially significant,
This project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous
materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No
significant impact is anticipated.
This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions
within the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of
Kern County. No significant impact is anticipated.
The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip
and it is therefore presumed not to have any land use impacts at this distance.
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1993) uses this 5,000 foot distance as the
maximum for land use considerations. No significant impact is anticipated.
The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not
inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan
(jan. 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of
emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials
incident. The proposed project could introduce substances typical of a mixed -
use planned community. However, hazardous waste facilities guidelines have
been adopted for Kern County to provide for adequate designation of hazardous
waste disposal facilities to serve the residents and the industries of Kern County
and its various incorporated cities thus, reducing the impacts to a less than
significe~t level.
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 7
This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area or it is within the area
covered by the Hillside Development Ordinance (HD) which has standards
required by the Kern County Fire Department which address the issue of wildland
fires and urban development. No significant impacts are anticipated.
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY
The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure that the
quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be
substantially affected. No significant impact is anticipated.
The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of
all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is
not considered significant. All water utility companies within the project area
have been contacted regarding the.. proposal. The appropriate water utility
company may require the project applicant to provide some water system
improvements to service the site hut this impact is not regarded as significant.
There are no streams or rivers on 'the project site, existing drainage pattems will
not be altered to an significant degree. All development within the City of
Bakersfield is required by ordinalice to comply with an approved drainage plan
(for every project) which avoids on and off site flooding, erosion and siltation
problems. 'lTne impact is not significant.
d. See answer to VIII c.
e. See answer to VIII c.
f. See answer VIII a.
The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified
by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No significant
impact is noted.
The projiect does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
No significant impact is noted.
The proposed project is not within the Lake Isabella dam fhilure inundation area
or the 100 year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VII1-2 of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (Safety Element). Or the project is
within fine inundation area but the: chances of loss injury and/or death are so
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 8
remote (worst case scenario, one event in more than 10,000 years, Bakersfield
Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk involved is regarded as insignificant (reference
also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for County and Greater Bakersfield
Area below Lake Isabella Dam).
The project site is not located neat' any significantly sized body of water and is,
therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is not located at the foot
of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a
mudflow. No significant impact i'a noted.
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project is the continuation of 'the existing development pattern or an infill
development which does not physically divide any existing community. No
significant impacts are noted.
The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no
identified conflicts with policies e,r ordinances which were established to avoid or
mitigate environmental effects. No significant impact is noted.
c. See answer to Va.
X MINERAL RESOURCES
The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of
other important mineral resources, see figure V-3 Conservation Element,
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
a. See answer to X a.
XI NOISE
Development of the project will not expose persons or generate noise, in excess of
those standards found in the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, Noise
Element. The impact is not regarded as significant.
There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground
bourne vibration or noise. No significant impact identified.
Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the
site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation result in a 20
d.b.a. reduction in noise for inten[or space. In addition, typical development
standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will prevent
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 9
substantial increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining area, will not
expose people to severe noise lew.qs and would reduce noise impacts to less than
significant.
Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or
periodic) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient
noise levels has not been found to be significant.
This pro. ject is not located within .any area subject to the land use restrictions of
the adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan which covers all of Kern
County. No impact is identified.
This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip
and therefore does not have the potential to cause significant noise impacts
(Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan).
XII POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project is to change the site ~:om M-3 to M-2 and will not induce population
growth on this site, therefore, there is no impact to population and housing.
The project does not propose the displacement of any existing housing. No
impacts are noted.
c. The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No impact noted.
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protection?
Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided
through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The
proposaI may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to
maintain current levels of service; however, this potential increase in fire
protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this
development and is not deemed significant.
Police Protection?
Current]!y the site is within the Unincorporated County and protected by the Kern
County Sheriff. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police
Department upon annexation and project build out. Current City Police services
standards require 132 officers for each 1,000 people in the city. There is no
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 10
projected increase of new residents from the project. Therefore, this project is
not deemed to have a significant impact.
Schools?
The project will not impact school facilities to a significant: degree.
Parks?
The project proposes no increase m population for the area and would not result in
a impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or
create a :substantial need for new parks of recreational facilities.
Other Public Facilities?
Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup
of this area and annexation to the City will result in an increase in maintenance
responsibility for the City of Bakersfietd. These increases in services are not deemed
significant.
XiV RECREATION
a. See answer to "Parks".
b. See answer to "Parks
XV TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. The proZiect may potentially cause an increase in traffic which may be substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system,
and may substantially impact existing transportation systems. The project may
also alter the present patterns of c, irculation or movement of people and goods. A
traffic analysis has not been required for this proposal since the project is to
reduce the intensity of the industrial uses that would be allowed on the site. Any
impacts shall be reduced to a less. than significant level through the City ordinance
requirement that all on-site and off-site impacts from traffic generated by this
development be mitigated. All regional traffic impacts caused by this
development shall be mitigated according to the regional impact fee ordinance at
the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, local ordinance requires all
on site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street
improvements be built by each deve]lopment. The impact is not regarded as
significant.
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 11
The project must comply with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan which
has a level of service standard C which is higher than the Congestion
Management Plan level of service standard D. The impact is not regarded as
significant.
The project does not propose air tra:[Bc or impact air traffic patterns. No impact
noted.
All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic
engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are no
incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No impact noted.
All projects are by ordinance subject to the access requirements of the City of
Bakersfield Fire Department which includes an evaluation of adequate emergency
access. No impact noted.
The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use
be provided. No parking impacts specific to this project have been identified.
The prqject is not anticipated to be inconsistent in any way with policies or
prograrns supporting alternative 'transportation and shall by ordinance be required
to pay transportation impacts fees which in part is used to support mass transit
activities (acquisition of buses fb:r GET). No significant impacts noted.
XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will raeet the requirements of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, no potentially significant impacts have
been identified.
The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities.
Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development, but the
impact is not considered significant. All utility companies will be contacted
regarding the proposal and may require additional mitigation from the applicant
for receiving their service.
Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water
facilitk:s, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing
system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant
impact.
Appendix G
Zone Change P00-0410
Page 12
The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional
systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of
all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is
not considerod significant. The City of Bakersfield Fairhaven water system will
provide water service to the site. No significant impacts are noted.
The City of Bakers field is the waste water treatment provider and has indicated
there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project. No
significant impact is noted.
The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not
need significant new or substantialiy, altered facilities to accommodate this
project. No significant impact is noted.
The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to
waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. No significant impact is
noted.
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF][CANCE
The project is subject to the terms', of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits
issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the
permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay
habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to
grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level which is
less than significant. In addition, pursuant to Section 15064 (h) of the CEQA
Guidelines, a change in the environment is not a significartt effect if the change
complies with a standard that meets the definition of Section 15064 (h)(3). The
adopted Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan meets the definition
of Section 15064 (h)(3). Therofore, the proposal would not have a significant
effect on the environment.
As described in the responses above, the proposal has no impacts that would be
defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project site is
currently designated for residential urban development and the proposal would
actually reduce the density from planned unit development to single family
residential development.
As described in the responses ab,ave, the proposal would not adversely impact
human beings, either directly or 'indirectly.
S:XZoneChange\00-0410XAppendix G response. wpd
BAKERS FIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic F, ngmccri ng Memorandum
DATE: June 22, 2000
TO:
FROM:
Martin Ortiz, Planning
Stephen I.,. Walker, Traffic I'Zngincer '
SUBJECT:
P00-0410 Zone Change from M-3 to M-2, 20 acres. Rosedale hwy west of Fwy/ 99
Traffic S~udy Determination
The proposed zone change does not involve a General Plan Amendment. The Regional Impact Fee
ordinance (BMC 15.84) and associated improvement program was adopted with the finding that it
provides for full mitigation of traffic impacts, unless a General Plan Amendment was involved, The
ordinance also contains provisions tbr compliance with the CouncH's site plan review policy tbr
major retail resolution (BMC 15.84.040.C).
Due to the above criteria. no traffic impact study is required lbr this zone change. However, one will
be required with Site Plan Review if the project meets lhe criteria lbr a major retail prqiect. Since
Caltrans approvals would be needed ibr road improvements on Rosedaie Highway, they may require
a study regardless. In either case, the study woukt not be needed until Site Plan Review.
pV~' Memo Files
Traffic Eng neering File - P00-0410-Z('-Rosedale-Fwy 99-TrafStud.~ Dcmrm.wpd
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Applicant:
Address:
Crown Rosedale Associates, LLC
20101 S.W. Birch Street, Suite 260
Newpod Beach, CA 92660
Project Title/Location (include City and County):
ZONE CHANGE P00-0410: Generally along the north side of Rosedale Highway, west of State Route 99,
City of Bakersfield in the County of Kern, California.
Project Description:
ZONE CHANGE P00-0410 - Change in Land Use Zoning from M-3 (Heavy Industrial Zone) to M.-2
(General Manufacturing Zone) on approximately 20 acres located generally aqong the north side of
Rosedale Highway, west of State Route 99.
Finding of Exemption:
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 ef the State of California Public
Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency
that this project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with regard to wildlife resources
and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis" exemption in accordance with Section 711 of the State of California
Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of atdverse effect is rebutted by the above-referenced absence
of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the City of Bakersfield has made tlhe above finding(s) and that the project will not individually
or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the California
Department of Fish and Game Code.
June 20.2000
S',\ZoneChange\OO-O410\demin. cfewpd
Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director
City of Bakersfield, Development Services Department
Hearing Date: August 3, 2000.
EXHIIBIT 1
Proposed Mitigation Measures for
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P00-04.10
If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern County
Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. ff any other
amhaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all work shaft
stop until the fiind has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist or historian.
(Mitigation)
BAKE R S F I E LD
PUBLIC WORKS; DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE: June 22, 2000
TO:
FROM:
Martin Ortiz, Planning
Stephen L. Walker, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT:
P00-0410 Zone Change from M-3 to M-2, 20 acres, Rosedale hwy west of Fwy 99
Traffic Study Determination
The proposed zone change does not involve a General Plan Amendment. The Regional Impact Fee
ordinance (BMC t 5.84) and associated improvernent program was adopted with the finding that it
provides for full mitigation of traffic impacts, unless a General Plan Amendment was involved. The
ordinance also contains provisions for compliance with the Council's site plan review policy for
major retail resolution (BMC 15.84,040.C).
Due to the above criteria,. no traffic impact study is required for this zone change. However, one will
be required with Site Plan Review if the project meets the criteria for a major retail project. Since
Caltrans approvals would be needed for road improvements on Rosedale Highway, they may require
a study regardless. In either case, the study would not be needed until Site Plan Review.
CC:
PW Memo Files
Traffic Engineering File - P00-0410-ZC-Rosedale-Fwy 99-Traf Study Determ.wpd
SLW:BJ'D:bd
S :\WP\Planning\P00-0410-ZC-Rosedate-B'~ 99-Traf Study Delerm wpd
KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF '~;CHOOLS
June 26,2000
Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner
The City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Our File No.: C100-0044
Re: Zone Change P00-0410
Dear Mr. Ortiz:
This office represents the Beardsley and Kern High School Districts. We appreciate the
opportunity to respond on behalf of these districts regarding the proposed project. This letter is
fimited to addressing the possible effects which the project might have on school facilities
created by students attributable to the project. It is not intended to address other possible
environmental concerns which might be identifi~;d by the district(s) after reviewing it.
Our office has determined the above-mentioned project to prezone the site from M-3 to M-2 on
approximately 20 acres will have no significant ,affects on either of these distdct's facilities so
long as statutory school facilities fees are collected as required by law and that no further
mitigation measures regarding schoo~ facilities are necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. if there are any changes relating to
this project, please contact this office. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assistance in this matter, please do not Inesitate to contact me, or Steve Hartsell, at
636-4599, or through e-mail at mawitkins@kern.org.
Sincerely,
Larry E, Reider
County Superintendent of Schools
Mary L. Facility Specialist II
Sc!hool District Facifity Services
MLW
cc: District(s)
G:\DIVADMIN\SDF~\CORRES%O0 Cjty%CIOG-0044Beardsleywpd
.... advocates for chlld~'en
~,.j I FDD (66]) 636-48UG I f;ttp:H~'vwkert~ nrr~
Partner - Kern Eou~ty Network
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 32543266
BAKERSFIEL
Development Services Department
Jack Hardis~y, Director
July5,2000
D
Stanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 3274:)646
Kern Superintendent of Schools
Attention: Mary L Wilkins
1300 17~h Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: Zone Change P00-0410
Dear Ms. Wilkins:
The City of Bakersfield has received yolar correspondence dated June 26, 2000, regarding
the above referenced project. As stated in your correspondence, the project proposal from M-3 to
M-2 zone will be subject to the statutory school fee collection at the time of issuance for any
building permit for the site.
Thank you for the comments on this ma'tter, If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to phone me aI this office
Sincerely,
Martin Ortiz
Associate Planner
MO: pas
S:xpat\ltr,MO,7,5.wpd
City of Bakersfield · 1 71 5 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301 !:
July 5, 2000
Mr. Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfieid, CA 93301
SUBJECT: Draft Negative Declaration for Zone Change P00-0410
Dear Mr. Ortiz:
A Negative Declaration adequately addresses the park and recreation concerns
of North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District. The report indicates that the
zone wiI1 change from M-3 to M-2 on 20 acres. It also states that the zone wiII
change to M-1 from M-3. Neither should impact park and recreation services;
however, there should be consistency through the report.
North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District provides the park services and
recreation programs to this area.
Sincerely,
Colon G. Bywater
Planning and Construction Director
CGB:bc
Dennis C Fidier
Building Director
(661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 32543266
BAKERSFIEL
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
Stanley C. Grady
Pianning Director
(661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 3274)64~
July 7, 2000
North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District
Attention: Colon Bywater
405 Galaxy Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Re: Zone Change P00-0410
Dear Mr. Bywater:
The City of Bakersfield has received your correspondence dated July 5, 2000 regarding
the above referenced project. The proposal is from M-3 to M-2 on 20 acres. As stated in your
letter, the proposal should not impact park and recreation services.
Thank you for your comments on this project. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to phone me at this office.
Sincerely,
Martin Ortiz
Associate Planer
MO:pah
P:\Corres\bywater 7-6-00.1tr.wpd
City of Bakersfield · 1715 Chester Avenue . Bakersfield,. California - 9330.1: ,
Dennis C. Fidler
Building Director
(661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266
BAKERSFIEL
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
July 21, 2000
D
Slanley C. Grady
Planning Director
(661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 32743646
Kevin H. Scott, Assistant Fire Marshal
I<ern County Fire Department
5642 Victor Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308~4056
Re: Zone Change No. P00-0410
Dear Mr. Scott:
The City of Bakersfield has received your correspondence dated July 7,
2000. regarding the above-referenced project. The proposal is to change the zoning
designation from M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) on 20 acres,
which both allow ~heavy industrial uses' and are the city's heavy industrial zoning
districts. In light of the fact that there are businesses in the area of the site that have
hazardous materials, city staff does not believe that the 'buffer" is diminished due to
the proposa{. Therefore, city staff will not require dsk assessments for the zone
change.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to
phone me at this office.
Sincerely,
Marc; Gauthier
Principal Planner
S:%ZoneChange\OO-O410\Fire Itr,wpd
City of E~akersfield · 1715 Chester Aw;nue · Bakersfie{d, California · 93301
· ,lxxern ' ounry
Fire Deparh ,.en
_;642 Victor Street · Bakersfield, CA 933084056
Telephone661-391-7000 · Fax661-391-7077
TrY Relay Service 1-800~735-2929
,,~.x~ -,v ~ -- .! _.
GtTY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING DEPARTMEN'I
DA~LGCLARK
Deputy Chiefs
DENNIS L. THOMPSON,
DAVID L W~D,
STEP~N A GAGE.
~OS~L I~EY,
C~Y 1, EC~D,
July 7, 2000
Bakersfield Development Sen, ices Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attn: Martin Ortiz
Fax (661) 326-3733
Total of 2 pages
Re:
Zone change P00-0410
City Annexation No. 412
Dear Mr, Oniz:
This office has received and reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration.
The property is adjacent to existing developed areas. Based on the make-up of the businesses
surrounding the site, the Draft Negitive;Declara~ion· should be revised to indicate a "Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation COrpora'~ien" in Item'Vl~-B. The adjacent properties immediately
to the north and northwest are currently zor~e~ and developed, as heavy industrial. As part of the
heavy industrial uses, hazardqus:ma},erials:.are ~t0i'ed. and used as a normalpart of the operation. If
a hazardous materials rel~were ia::occ~5;!~iere"izohld be significant. 6if-site consequences from
these existing facl'Iiti~s:~j~at~nly~i~0r r~stricti~:the u~i~fthe.prol~Sed;axe, as2 -Since the project
is proposin~ io-chige th.~ n, e0~rentiy exi'~is ar0iihd.-the heavy
industrial area may~be d!~h'~:! :(: :5' ::;:' """: -"' ": ':' ' ......
Depending on the future use of the pr6pi~rty, there could be significant impacts to the life safety of
occupants or employees if a hazardous materials release were to occur on one of the adjacent
properties. This is not to say that the property cannot be developed, howev{;r, the development must
be approved and, more impartantly, must be consistent with the surrounding area.
A mitigation measure should be included in the Negative Declaration which requires that a risk
assessment be completed. This risk assessment would evaluate the potential impacts and off-site
consequences of a hazardous materials release at the surrounding facilities in the area. The
assessment should be based on EPA Guidelines based on the "Worst Credible Case". This is a
Service * Pride ' Commitment
Bakersfield Developmere Services Department
July 7, 2000
Page Two
standard that has been developed for exactly this ,type situation, and this review has been used
:mccessfully before by both the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern.
If you should have any questions or comments, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
DANIEL G. CLARK, Fire Chief
Kevin H. Scott
Assistant Fire Marshal
cc: Bakersfield City Fire Department - Ralph Huey
Kt-iS/ks
FALettersXZCp00-0410.wpd
MEMORANDUM
August15,2000
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Y STANLIEY C. GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FILE: ZONE CI-IANGE PO0-0410
In response to Commission comments at the August 3, 2000 meeting, staff has
evaluated the advisability of prezoning the project parcel to M-2 (General Manufacturing
Zone) to provide the closest match to the existing M-3 zone in the County. The County
M-3 zone allows commercial and heavy industrial uses while the City's M-2 zone alEows
commercial and light industrial uses which is acceptable to the applicant. The specific
concern regarded impacts of offsite industrial hazardous materials on the project site.
Ralph E. Huey, Director, Office of Environmental Services prepared the attached memo
which identified the most significant hazardous materials in relation to a proposed retail
use of the subject site and suggested appropriate mitigation (see attached memo). The
Commission's concern was based on an assumed retail use of the site. The project
before the Commission is a prezone to continue existing rights upon annexation. The
site would have the ability to be used for any use permitted in the M-2 zone. The site
specific use may or may not be retail.
Therefore, it is recommended that the following condition be added to the project
approval:
if a reta~ project is submitted ~br site plan review, the applicant shall
obtain approval of site layout and apply public safety measures consistent
with industry standards as determined by the City's Director of Office of
Environmental SeNices.
It should be noted any development of the site requires the site plan review
process, staff review, environmental docurnentation and a public hearing. The above
measure will be implemented at that time.
MG:pah
S:~oneChange\00-0410\memo.wpd
BAKE RS F I E L D
FIRE DEPARTMENT
DATE:
FROM:
TO:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
August I 1, 2000
Ralph E. Huey, Director Office of Environmental Servi
Kirk Blair, Assistant Fire Chief
Hazardous Materials Offsite Consequences Related to the Proposed Costco Site.
Some questions have s~u'faced regarding the safety and advisability of rezoning to accommodate
the new proposed Costco facility on Rosedale Highway just West of State Route 99. In order to
address these concerns am evaluation of the ha?mdous materials reported to be used or stored in
all of the businesses located in the area bordered by Rosedale Highway, Gilmore Avenue, Gibson
Street and Highway 99 has been completed. This is a heavily industrial area and many hazardous
materials are present in the businesses that are imzluded in this area. However, most of the
quantities are small or are of a nature that pose no hazardous materials threat to the site in
question. The one exception is the Las Palmas Oil and Dehydration facility located at 3121
Standard Street.
The Las Palmas facility is located to the immediate North of the proposed Zone change site and
report in their Chemical inventory, on file with Kern County Environmental Health an inventory
of I5,000 barrels of Crude Oil, 15,000 barrels of Diesel Fuel, 9,000 barrels of Gasoline and 100
barrels of a Silicic Acid, sodium salt solution. A review of the site diagram on file shows that the
gasoline and diesel fuel were stored in tanks near the southwest comer of the property somewhat
near the south property ]line. These tanks do pose~. a moderate off site consequence that does
impact the comer of the proposed Costco site.
Due to the nature of the materials, ie. Gasoline and diesel fuel the off site onsequences are
limited to fire and the worst credible case scenario would be a pool fire of the entire contents of
the tank in the secondary containment area. The calculations were made using US EPA offsite
consequence analysis guidance with the end point being where a person could receive second
degree burns from a 40 second exposure. The distance from the gasoline tanks calculated to be
101 feet. The distance from the diesel fuel tanks calculated to be 136 feet.
Figure one shows an areal photograph of the area with the tanks in question identified and the
offsite consequence arelt defined by circles with the distance from the outside of the tank to the
edge of the circle being 101 feet and 136 feet respectively. Attachments 2 and 3 are the
calculations used to make these distance estimates.
Conclusion:
Although, the tanks in question are currently empty or in the case of the diesel tank, filled with
water, it is possible that these tanks could be leased again and used to contain diesel fuel or
gasoline. It would be prudent therefore, to require some mitigation to prevent a full scale pool
fire from impacting the proposed Costco Site. A block walt possibly 10 feet tall should provide
adequate thermal protection.
REH/ed
cc: R. Fraze
H. Wines
Martin Ortiz
S
0 1000 2000 Feet
e
SPG = 0.73 (5.9 lb/gal)
SCENARiO = POOL FIRE (GASOLINE)
GASOLINE TANK: 9,000 BBL = 378,000 GAL
= 2,246, 152 lbs of gasoline
FORMULA: d' = PFF x
BERMED AREA = 50' X 100' = 5,000
POOL FIRE FACTOR::
PFF =
PFF =
PFF-- :Hc /5,®omv ;o p, Cm.298> ¢0.0929
5,000 -' WATTS/m: (2~a DEGREE BURN)
Hc = HEAT OF COMBUSTION -- 435.1 x l0s J/kg
Hv = HEAT OF VAPORIZATION= 3.4 x l0s .J/kg
Cp = LIQUID HEAT cAPAcrrY = .494btuflb -°F (4186.8)=2068.28 J/kg-°C
Tb = BOILING TEMPERATtIRE = 400°K
298 -- AMBIENT TEMP (75°F)
0.0001 = CONSTANT
0.0929 = CONVERSION FACTOR (METERa TO EEl`z)
43,510,000V/5000 0.0001 4'0.0929
(3.14)(340,000+2068.28(400-298)
1.426
1.426 -/'5000 = I 100.8 FEET I
Attacltment 2
SPG = 0.85 (6.9 lb/gal)
I FORMULA: d' = PFF x 4.A
BERMED AREA = 75' X 125'
POOL FIRE FACTOR:
SCENARIO = POOL FIRE (DIESEL)
DIESEL.TANK: 15,000 BBL = 630,000 GAL
= 4,358,970 lbs of diesel
9,375 rr"
PFF =
PFF = IlcV5,000(Hv~0C0g (TB - 298) 4'0.0929
5,000 = WATTS/m2 (2"a DEGREE BURN)
He = FIEAT OF COMBUSTION = 429 x 10~. ~J/kg
Hv = HEAT OF VAPORIT. ATK N = NOT PERTINENT -- 0
Cp = LIQUID HEAT CAPACHFY = .461btu/lb -°F (4186.8)~1930..1 J/kg-°K
Tb = BOILING TEMPERATUllE = 585°K
298 = AMBIENT terap (°K) = (75°F)
0.0001 = CONSTANT
0.0929 = CONVERSION FACTOR. CMETER= TO FEET~)
42,900,000 / 0.0001 4'0.0929 = 1.4
'S 5000 (3.14)(0+1930.1(585-298)
= 1.4 x 4'9375
135.6 FEET
Attachment 3