HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 072-06
RESOLUTION NO.
072-06
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION PROPOSING
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AS ANNEXATION NO. 481
LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST PANAMA LANE,
APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET EAST OF SOUTH UNION
AVENUE. (WARD 1).
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to propose a change of organization, to wit, the
annexation to the City of Bakersfield ofthe hereinafter-described territory, pursuant to Section 56654
of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation territory is within and consistent with the City of
Bakersfield Sphere of Influence boundary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield agrees to annex the territory located south of East
Panama Lane, approximately 2000 feet east of South Union Avenue, into the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed to serve the territory upon annexation; and
WHEREAS, the property owner of the territory has consented to annexation; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it
hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. That the City of Bakersfield hereby proposes the annexation to the City of
Bakersfield of the territory in Exhibit "A" and shown on map marked Exhibit "B" and
adopts the Negative Declaration in Exhibit "0" for the project attached hereto and
made a part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein, located south of East
Panama Lane, approximately 2000 feet east of South Union Avenue.
2. That a plan for providing services within the affected territory of the proposed
annexation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 56653 of the Government
Code, is marked as Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof as though
fully set forth herein.
3. That this proposal for change of organization, to wit, annexation, is made pursuant to
the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and it is
requested that proceedings be authorized for annexation in accordance therewith.
4. That the reasons for the proposed change of organization are that the owners of the
affected territory desire to receive municipal services from the City of Bakersfield,
and the City desires to receive tax revenues for benefits given and to be given to the
territory proposed to be annexed.
«'òMf-'9
a <!;,
>- -
>- m
_ c-
o CJ
,)R!~INÞI
5. That for this proposed annexation territory and the prezoning therefore, the City did
prepare an environmental document in accordance with State CEQA guidelines and
will use the environmental document for the proposed prezoning and annexation.
6. That the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of the
environmental document as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act
have been duly followed.
7. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined
to be uninhabited pursuant to Section 56046 of the Government Code.
8. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein has been determined
to have 100% of property owners consenting to annexation.
9. That the territory proposed for annexation as described herein is within the City of
Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Boundary.
10. That the Local Agency Formation Commission waive the protest hearing
proceedings pursuant to Part 4, commencing with Section 57000 of the Cortese-
Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
11. That the names of the officers of the City of Bakersfield who are to be furnished with
copies of the Executive Officer's Report and who are to be given mailed Notice of
Hearing, if any, are:
Pamela A. McCarthy
City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Alan Tandy
City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Virginia Gennaro
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
12. That the appropriate City officials shall file ten (10) copies of this Resolution, with
Exhibits, with the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of
Kern County at 5300 Lennox Street, Suite 303, Bakersfield, California 93309.
2
« 'ò Mf-'9
C) ó'
.,.,
>- -
>- n
- c-
o c.'
('\r"}lrl~I~~
---------000--------
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on MAR 8 ?OOS ,
by the following vote:
~
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
v,/',/' v ./,~./
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
APPROVED MAR 8 2006
~t1,
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Cler
Council of the City of Bakersfield
HARVEY L. H LL
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
BY:~Îì0 ,
EXHIBITS: A Legal Description
B Map
C Plan for Services
o Negative Declaration
DL:dc
S:\Annexation\Res of AppHc\ann481.roa.doc
3
~ 'ò~~f-'9
C) <!;,
>- -
>- m
_ c-
o t)
(JRI(':INM
EXHIBIT" A"
ANNEXATION NO. 481
PANAMA LANE NO. 16
That parcel ofland being a portion of the North Y, of Section 29, T. 30 S., R. 28 E., M.D.M
in the County of Kern, State of California, according to the official plat of said Land
approved by the Surveyor General January 28, 1868 more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the North Y, Section 29, also being the intersection
of the centerline of So. Union Avenue and the centerline ofPanarna Lane thence, South
00°35' 18" West along said So. Union Avenue center line, a distance of 30 feet to a point on
the South Right of Way ofPanarna Lane; thence South 89°31 '28" East along said South
Right of Way, a distance of 1978.57 feet to a point on the existing City of Bakersfield
Corporate Boundary and the True Point of Beginning;
Thence (I) Continuing along said South Right of Way ofPanarna Lane, South 89°31 '28"
East, 659.58 feet;
Thence (2) Continuing along said Right of Way ofPanarna Lane, South 89°31 '20" East,
1056.35 feet;
Thence (3) South 04°45'09" West, 1273.72 feet; to a point on the North Right of Way of
the Arvin Edison Canal;
Thence (4) Along said North Right of Way, South 89°31 '39" East, 48.85 feet:
Thence (5) Departing said North Right of Way, South 03°45'00" East, 316.01 feet;
Thence (6) North 90°00'00" West, 59.00 feet;
Thence (7) South 13°00'00" East, 139.50 feet;
Thence (8) South 14°35'00" East, 202.40 feet;
Thence (9) South 16°30'00" East, 710.44 feet to a point on the East to West midsection
line of said Section 29;
Thence (10) Along said midsection line, North 89°32'17" West, 2590.21 feet;
Thence (II) Departing said midsection line, North 00°33' 16" East, 1156.72 feet to a point
on the South Right of Way of the Arvin Edison Canal;
Thence (12) Along said South Right of Way, North 89°24'42" West, 1377.13 feet to a
point on the West Right of Way of South Union Avenue;
Annex481PanamaLn 16-Lgl
~ 'òM(¿:~
o <!;,
>- -
>- m
_ c-
o <::;
ORIn"'.'
Thence (13) Along said West Right of Way of South Union Avenue, North 00°35'18"
East, 165.40 feet to a point on the North Right of Way of said Arvin Edison
Canal;
Thence (14) Departing said West Right of Way and continuing along the North Right of
Way of said Arvin Edison Canal, South 89°26' 17" East, 2037.08 feet to an
angle point at the existing City of Bakersfield Boundary;
Thence (15) Along the existing City of Bakersfie1d Corporate Boundary, North 00°33'14"
East, 1275.30 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Contains
127.39 Acres
¿#/L/
Robert E. Smith
Civil Engineer
CHECKED by
KERN COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE
Date '2.- 10- 0 "')
ælt1Ji'~ ~
Annex481PanamaLn 16-Lgl
~'òM{-'-'9
C) if·
>- :!
>- IT
- r-
o <::;
()PI~I"' ðl
~---"--
~
(
-
'-
~
'"
,i
,
i
!¡
~ ~
I I
011
~ ?ì
_ .,
~: ~ ~i º _J; ~__li_~_tL; ~lt
.~~~.~~.~~~._._~~
§:~~~~~=II~~~~~~~~i
i I~~~~~::~~C::::':~
; sse£ô'Ö'"'ÔÒÒ~"
~~~3=~~~~~~~S~~~!S
-- --,._-~
:::
"
¡'i'.
c:~:=-:-C:-~:E ,ccc:~:=-::~:=-::=-:~~~~~~~~\~c-c:..::,::c
/ i~i
:1:
, ,
, ,
:}:
, ,
, '
, ,
:!:
"
",
,',
:1:
, ,
,
: I, ~'~'.' '''''.-' ."._ ,__ ,,,,_,, ,
:'
:ì
,
:!
,
:1
"
:-1
:1
:1
"
::
"
"
,
"
"
5 ::
:; :1
~ ~i
~n -!
':-!-i'
"
-t:
,-.,
"''''''--'"
,
¡
I
-----------"-
:'1
'ii,'
~
ø
Ej
p
e
¡3
~
p
g¡'
~:
~
~:
"
OJ,
i:~
G
u
e'
i
"'
~
~
e.
S,
~;-
fO··
~~
:~:~:l~1
'. ~ " i
---~---
!
I
¡
I ~
:~
-..-.--.--------.-
z
~
8
~d
Jli¡
ih
~~~ !
:¡~; i
Ba !
5i±
¡"
t~
-----------
I
I
z
!~
------...--"-
~ "!æ
~: ~2!B
!~i I~~;!
~;¡i!i I"'"
O~~ r
Ii! ,.
II!
IL
'"
:1:
.:¡:
,'"
-cc:=-::=-::-::-:~:=E~:::
i' ,.
I .
, .
~~
:~
.
I
f
----~----
!
I
¡
I
~ '
,
,
,
~ I
_._._--------~--_.~-----'----- ~;
--------
~---'1 ~,~_r ~~.-- :,".. ';::.-~,-.--'n'7'.,
]nN~'" NOtNfI
.' 7- ~_.,--,--,
'--:"-'-,.. ".'.,.'
'OŠ)
~ :
I
.'
"
s¡
,% ~
~
'i'
~
~
~
,~
,~
'''"'
~
!
¡
.
I
"
,
,
I'
.. - - ~ - --.. -- _ Lr
.-:'''- ~ . ;"',-~ --:·'~~-T-,_:_;.,.".1'!-r--
. , -~·I
~, ¡:--,
',-'1
,~
'0
~I~
..
~ ,0,
'4', ;
. ð ~.,x
~E:: .J
~~ ;¡
;;:¡~ ~,
;g -.
-.;¡ ~ e
~. ^
U':I_ .U
:::=>.... ...'
{(JI=lil~
"'§<>~..,;.:!
~...~~~!
{'(1II~~£i~
=- -
.¡~~.
L,
!
I ,
¿.
>-
>-
Õ
n
þ.,f({-',;y
<;
m
c-
o
I~ ".JAI
~""
DC ~
...
'0
Oz
z«
z:::;
0«
f=z
««
X 0..
W
Z
Z
«
en
w
o
:;:
a:
w
en
C)
z
Õ
:;:
o
a:
Q.
a:
o
II..
Z
<I:
...J
Q.
&i W
a:
"0 '" ¡¡: I--
<D I'"
"0 (fJ (fJ (fJ (fJ z (fJ (fJ
';; "0 W I--
0 <D W W W W X :::; X X W W :::;
cl: " ëii ::J ::J ::J ::J « « « ::J ::J
c: '¡¡ Z Z Z Z 0.. Z Z >
to I-- I-- I--
'" c: ~ W W W W 0 W W 0
<D ü: > > > > (fJ ....J (fJ (fJ > > ¡.-:
" '" W W W W « W « « W W
.2: <D 0 a: a: a: a: ø > ø ø a: a: >
<D .c 0 W 0 0 a:
(fJ <D X X X X 0 X X 0..
.;¡ l'! « « « « z W z z « « <>ð
3: E I-- I-- I-- I-- «(fJ «(fJ «(fJ I-- I--
0 - X I-- W W W
" ....J ....J ....J ....J ....JW ....JW ....JW ....J ....J
I 'C: J!! OJ « « « « «::J « «::J «::J « « W W W
<D 1ñ ëii E a: a: a: a: a:Z 2: a:Z a:Z a: a: lJ.. lJ.. lJ..
1¡j '"
ë5 4 '" W W W WO Ww a: Ww Ww w w a: a: a:
" ~ <D <D Z Z Z Zz Z> 0.. Z> Z> Z Z w W w
ï5 c: '" w w « w W::J ww >- WW ww W W (fJ (fJ (fJ
Ü ~ '" Z
.E to ø ø ø ølJ.. øa: ro øa: øa: ø ø ::J ::J ::J
Ü
'C:
1ñ
ë5
}:
Ü 0
.c: ....J
" *E w
E ¡¡: i\i
i!: 0"5 (fJ
~ ~ a:
'" w ~
<D .a~ ~
" to
2: <D ::J « 0..
"0 lJ.. c: ro <D
<D ';; 0 >- >- <D
(fJ '" lJ..
0 to 0 I-- I-- ~
-'" cl: X Z Z
" c: <D >- >- ::J >- ::J >- >- >- >- >- >- >-
<D= o c: t: t: 0 t: 0 t: I-- t: t: I-- I-- t:
.c: ~ o.c:
Ü ::J« ü ü ü ü ü ü Ü ü ü Ü Ü ü
'"
<D ....J W
"0 0 Ü
.;; a: :;
0 I--
4 a:
0.. « W
.? 0.. (fJ
ë >- a:
«
<D i!: w
'" I--
~ I «
0.. º i!:
.c:
" I «
E <>ð Z>-
i!: >- >- >- lJ..>- >- >- >- a:Z w
¡; <D I-- I-- I-- lJ..1-- I-- I-- I-- 0« ~
" Z Z Z -Z Z Z Z lJ..0..
c: 2: ::J ::J ::J a:::J ::J ::J ::J ::¡:::; >
~ <D 0 0 0 ~O 0 0 0 «0 ¡:¡:
<! (fJ 0 0 0 (fJO 0 0 0 OOa.
c:
0
:æ [û
~ c:
0
" ·Ü c: (fJ
<D 0 <D ë5 ::J
a: Q)~ c: 4
(fJ - " 0 " - lJ..
W g "0 e <D t5 c: 0> c: ~ W
Ü c: c..ë to c: g- O ~
to 1:' ::J c: 'ã, Ü to
:; ,= '" ~o.. W 4 <D c: 4 4
to û)'E <D '''' "0 <D <D Q;
a: c: -'" ~ <D .c: 0 3:1¡j
OJ .D :.=Q) c: ,- .c:
W to o .: o to 3: ~ 0
(fJ õ: 0.. :.J 0..lJ.. (jj Ü:::; (fJ ....J ¡¡: ðJi!: Õ
o
~
iii
:I:
><
W
~
ü
o
o
ti
;¡;
E
X
l!!
a:;
"
X
'"
C
C
~
Z
o
F
;:;
L!J
Z
Z
~
Ö
'< 'òf>..K~1'
o ~
>- -'
1::. P'1
o <::>
ORIGINAL
<f)
'"
"
.£ "2:
- -'"
~ ß goo
~ CO._ >.
() =mg-g
ë > (];I Q.)
ct co s: e'
Ü.-t="'C (/) (];I
~~æQ)E
0. ",,,,
co ctS ~z "-
Wü c 00.,E
J:: "'-
+-'ã5~a5Q)
>. > 0-....: E
..c Q) ~-:;::
"O....J_wQ)
~ ~ .æ'~ ê
'-'- eel s::.. 0
ê; 2: .~ Q) a.
.....w-c(l)cn
c.cn E õ ~
'"
.0
=
';¡:
J::
,\!
J::
"
'"
"
.2:
'"
<f)
.2
>-
c
o
'"
:¡¡
'"
.\!
ëi
0.
'"
<::
'"
J::
"
<::
o
~
E
o
-
c:
'"
"
'2: '"
'" ~
(/);,:
.!:1ñ
" '"
01 E ro
<:: "'"
;¡: E ~
-º 0 OJ'-;-
E .;:.....: U
Q) c:;;1V
:f; .Q Q) :>.
~ --0"-
Q) ~":;: ~
-c 0 o..c
'SC-"-=
2 .Q .æ c. ¿
c. êtí ~ ~ .Q
Q) U._ __
(/)O-C::=CCI
co....JE3:êï.í
'"
ã:
<f)O
:..ëq
-"
õ>-
>-Q;
-Ë 10
'¡j E
":;: 'x
'" e
.~ §:
"C '"
~ .~
ê ~
'" §
£0.
<f)
.~ ~
-gZ-
-c ï:::::
~":; .Q
wee..
fIi 0._
E .~ .ê
ctI_LLC/)
::; e ¡ß
õcr;¿-:
is c.g 0
c3 :s ~ m
~0Q)'S
J::<::<::
~æE
"'â)
.$:2 OJ
oz
CLUJ
'"
>- >-
·-=:W
Ü"C
<::
'" '"
£ '"
OJ
J:: <::
0>'"
OJ >
0«
~
J:: <::
-OJ
X
"COJ
'" ~
(¡;t-
.~õ
.~ tv
E E
"C
'"
<::
o
.~
x
'"
<::
<::
'"
0",
"J::
Q)û5'::
.0",0
,,-
:=£~
":J "
OJ::
<f)<f)1:
~ ~ g
"2:::: æ
Q)CO:,,:
<f)"C E
Q)$C0
.~ ~ <Ó
0°>'
a..=ã5
~cr;
wEê
21:X
....Ime
00.0.
c..~g.
'" '"
J:: "
t-2:
'"
<f)
<f)
'00 ~
'" .-
.DLL
~ >-
OJ-
0<::
-7 5
~Ü
'" 0
<:: >-
o :'!:::
Ü
~-cV
:2~E
ê> :æ +::
~ '"
0._ <f)
0<::
<f) <:: 0
,- 0.
§ ~ ~
"t5 c: 0
$0>.
o:¡::; :'!:::
a.~~
'" '"
~cc.
ü:æ~
Q)CQ)"'O
£'~:5 §
- Q) ~- .
O"c(/)Q)O>
£.S:È';:~
twt- '
00) wI!)
c c: '..c 0
(tIC--_
-g.c.gCl)~
"@ ~.2.s: E
uQ)~.rgQ)
-º.9ï::~~
OJ 0>
~ ë .~"'C «
~}f> æ ~
O(f)þ Q)
z:sü §;:
c a. ._ 0
o >. Q) Õ a..
:';::::(t .!:a>-
.æ ::> +-' Õ .S:
(/»c"-o
ü'- 0.-:1
>-",J::
.... _(1)0
§ E .~ .~ ::
00 -c;
Ü Ü >. 0') cU
u1::c::::J
>.~ ~ï5 ~
..c o·-:::J
"O,,->c.
~ca.e(J)
"'C ct c: Q..(¡)
.~ ~~ õ [
D....c: ~ û) x
Q).Q'> 0 ~
..cI(I)ücn
1:5 Q) ~>.
CD .c. ;'!:::
õ-o
c.~E
OJ 0
C:§þu.:::
Q) ._ c: .S: c
C/) t) ð >-.Q
WI ~ ü 1:: ~
a:2wð=
¡¡:,~£ü 8
==ca
"t-
"'-
.20
<::
'"
0.
o
~
'"
>:
'E'
:J
o
Ü
"C
<::
'"
Þ
ü~
-OJ
<f) 0
""J::
(ij '"
CL:¡¡
"c'"
0<::
o g
J:: '"
o ~
.o_
J:: '"
,~u
Q)=
<::.0
0> OJ
<:: 0.
:.¡:::; Q)
<f)J::
'x ~
w_
õ-g
§ã.
,_ 0
,~~
~=
.;:: ro
.:2. .9
"'-
:5 ~
cE
£ ~
.~ .~
,Ð -c
-<::
" '"
"'-
'0'.2
~ ~
o.1ñ
co
o
'-æ ~
x rot)
~D-£
æ -g,~
",,,,"C
J:: <:: '"
r- 0 £
~ ·-æõ
ot;~
- '" ~
t-~'"
«~"C
UJ"C<::
a:ã5!!!
u¡,=C/)
w ~-c
a:~æ
C"'<f)
z[Dë
c:tõQ.J
(/) >- E
~:!::: ~
a: Ü '5
« '" CT'"
0..£,-
<:: -
0"C
<f) '"
- 0
~cr:
0<::
<:: 0
'" <f)
w==
w::O;
'"
J::
:o.~
.Q~õ
"C -
W __ æ
C: '" "
'" J::
<J) 1:
<f)"C 0
.- 2 c:
t)~æ
,~o ==
2 - E
0... >- r--:
<::~'"
.Q ~ >-
1O:9ëV
~...J1O
<:: E
S.c: 'x
'" " 0
Wæc.
J::~o.
t-CD",
E
'"
1ñ
>-
UJ
>-
~
'"
~
.0
:::;
>-
'E'
OJ
o
Ü
<::
~
Q)
'"
>-
.0
"C
'"
C:
'"
<f)
,~
'"
'"
~
>-
a:
«
a:
ID
::;
= "
;¡:'5
'" OJ
",CL
~2
" '"
","C
'" 0
~ E
LL E
õo
008
'" '"
"
",.8
OJ <f)
<:: '"
~.2
« C:
<:: '"
OJ <f)
X"C
OJ <::
~'"
<::-
o ~
"C <::
~ 0
~~
c: '"
00-
:æ 00-
o .~
o...:=:
~ ,-
0"
Ü,¡!!
þ>-
üCa
'" <f)
.c:æu:i
t-"1:
, '" 0
(/)<::'1::
luww
W:-QJQ
a:>~
I- 0 0
(/) c.::o;
Þcti
ü~
'" '"
J:: <f)
'::::Eb
0-'"
_O"C
c-- Q)
'(300 w
ro ~ c:
0..- 00
'" C: '"
U Q)"
0><f)"C
f?~ æ
'" 0 <f)
'- ~.-
w 0 ~
£=.0
<::.0 ~
._ :J ro
<:: 0.-
o~~
TIroQ)
OJ <f) ~
-cæro
~ U §
° ~ W
<::",.0
W.c:=
.0 --.-
= ","
.~ ~ æ
w 6.2
ID c. è:
J::o'"
t-_UJ
-c '- - C/)
c:0.$->-
ro - w --
C/)~ü
ïi.i 00 Q)
~~ :5
c: '- C/) c
ro ro Q).-
c--c.c:
w :J :J:::
ë 0)- :s:
._ Q.J 0
ro'-C-C
::2 .- 2
,'" '"
~ ~"
Z § 'm -º
¡:: 0... C
:I:-CWW
CJ,-CI:.c:
::;~ "
..... 0>
~ >- <::
Z -- .-
-O-ci:E
c.. ",0>
wQ)-c=
W.c:W-c
:::,--Wc
(/» <:: '"
,..,E 0>
we c
o - ~ '5.
Z"C Q)
<0> '"
z.c:Q):3:
wuuOO
I-êtíca.i
~i~~
:;¡¡ .£ ¡¡¡
z .0'" "'E ;=
o 't¡¡
¡:: ,- E
o ~ w-:>.
::::) _.2: -g ctf
Œ:w--:>
I-C.$U:>
cncc.sõ
zg~C/)__
Oã3~§-á
o a. a. U .;::
<f)
1ñ
x
'"
þ
'¡j
'"
0.
'"
"
'"
10
OJ
CT
'"
"C
«
,,¿
'"
'"
"
'"
'"
"
.~
,~
0.
OJ
""
"
.0.
'"
<f)
OJ
'ê
þ
(5
<f)
1ñ
'x
'"
Þ
'¡j
'"
0.
'"
"
'"
-
'"
OJ
CT
'"
"C
«
1O~ § ~ ~
0).......- ro
.!: ro:5 a.
-g'" -g £ Ü~
'" OJ
W OJ ° Q.J
c: :J (fJ 0
ro c_ ·S
...J OJ ° L
ro>__ OJ
E«¡ß UJ
roc~ <v ~
æ'~ã) 1o-c...:
D-:=¡.æ ~ ~~
~£o >OJ
w ð~ ï:: o.e~
_,0_ "
.!: C/) >- OJ Q.J
..c:-ã5 (ij .0
."5°..... ü _~
>.....ro __
'" <f) E '" .;¡: ~
C w._ :5
= ~ ð ¿ OJ W
>-ouÆ
W õ3 0.. .Q:.¡:::;.-..c:
:s: OJ a.. -c ctI 2: U
~;;~ ~~~æ
'-'! -'" L C -.t:
00...... Q)c-c".¡
~C,\ ~ (/JctjQ)""
0"J~û5 0> c: ~ -£
.~ .æ Cl> .~ 8.. C '§
û) m.!= ~: æ en
'x E..c: (/):J c: 13
Q) ·x ~ .- U Q.) ~
C0õ) >-u..c:ë
ctI 0..[D 0 ~ 3: °
(/)0... :::=='U
.- ro c: :: S: ID ~
~ -:.c 2 OJ ~..o
w ã) .'!:::: '" 0>_ ~
..c: Q) ~ ..c: C Q) °
f-.ÞQ.J ......ctlCI:(/)
,Cf)c: ,..c:_Q.)
a:'-=wa:ua:~
wO,-:Jwowo
:;:'!::::Q)cl-C:::I:-
UJ§""'«"Ct-~
(/)::¡;~~==æo<3
~
'"
£
CD
Þ
(5
'"
£
C\J
« 'òM"'1>
a ~
>- -
¡-- m
- ,....
v ORIGINAP
1, Whal effects, if any, would annexation of this territory have on the existing level of city/dislrict
services (Le" need for additional emergency service personnel or construction of new facilities,
etc)? The annexation of lhis terrilorv will have minimal effect on the near term level or capabilitv
of the City to provide needed services, Upon fulure development. additional Dolice officers would
possiblv be required to maintain the current level of city service, The planned development
includinq public streels or municipal facilities within lhe territory will increase lhe future
maintenance responsibilitv of lhe City but should not affect the exislinq level of service,
2, Would city/district require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected territory (roads,
fire hydrants, mains, etc,): If so, would city/district or developer be responsible for financing?
Private developmenl provides and pays for maior facilities and dedicates them to the City No, if
any additional development occurs, the developer provides and pays for maior facilities and
dedicates them to the City, No upqradinq or chanqe in facilities will be required in the territory for
annexalion,
3, Indicate and explain existing zoning in affected lerrilory, County zoned the terrilorv A (Exciusive
Aqriculture) Zone,
4, Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects on present land use thai would
occur as a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock on property, elc,)The City has
adopted Zone Chanqe Ordinances 4266 and 4272 to chanqe prezoninq from City A (Aqriculture)
to R-1 (One Familv Dwellinq) Zone,
5, List cily/district services that area will directly or indirectly benefit from such as decrease in fire
insurance rate, shorter emergency response time, use of community facilities, etc, Cilv Police
should be able to respond in a more timelv manner than presenl County Sheriff services, Parcels
within the incorporated area are allowed to connect to available City sewer system lines. The
present City refuse collection rate is subslantially lower than fees county residents now pay to
independent companies, No special assessments or charqes for street sweepinq, leaf collection,
street liqhtinq enerqy costs and fire hYdrants when located within lhe City's incorporated area,
City qovernment also provides increased political representalion for the residents within the
corporate limits,
6, Please provide the following information relative to city/district and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area, The existinq tax rate in the area equals 1,132266% of assessed
market value, This represents the total property tax rate, When annexed a desiqnated
percentaqe of the total property tax of the area will accrue to lhe Cily and remainder to the
County for providinq health care and social services, (Rate as shown on 2005-2006 County
Auditor-Controllers 2005 Lien Dale),
7, Would affected area be subject to any bonded indebtedness of the cily/districl?: If so, explain,
No, lhe City bounded indebtedness has been paid off and the current tax rate list shows no city
bonded indebtedness
8. How will the difference in tax rates affect a property with a market value of $50,000,OO?
The property rate will not increase due to annexation and re-assessmenl will nol occur due to
annexalion,
9, Is the proposed area subject to a Williamson Act Contract? No, the existinq annexalion area is
not subiect to a Williamson Acl Contract.
Q:IANNEXATIONlAnnex 481\Exhib,t C.DOC
3
~ 'òM(;'?>
o <!¡,
>- -
>- m
- ,...
<.? ORIGINAC'
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
__.cLb~d."-..
The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible
environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is
appropriate, It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required),
will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation
Procedures,
PROJECT NO. (or Title):
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS:
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS:
Annexation No. 481
Februarv 6. 2006
Februarv 27, 2006
MITIGATION MEASURES: (included in the proposed project to evoid potentially significant effects, if required)
1, No archaeological resources were identified on the project site, however, prior to ground
disturbance a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a field survey of the entire parcel, Any
measures by the archaeologist shall be complied with at that time,
2, The developer of the project site shall be required to pay into the adopted Regional Traffic Impact
Fee fixed rate program, The fee program improvements mitigate impacts of the existing densities
and, therefore, will do so due to the minor increase.
3, If human remains are discovered or identified on the project site at any time or during site
disturbance, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified
immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the
California Public Resources Code which detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the
find) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately,
S:\AnnexationIRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
« 'ò/>.Kfi'
a ,:!;,
>- -
>- m
_ c-
Page 1 O~IGIM^,<:'
.,..-..--.-" <-_.,..._--.__.._--_._,,_..,.._--,--------~'-
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1, Project: (Title & No,)
Annexation No. 481
2, Lead Agency: (name and address) Citv of Bakersfield. DeveloDment Services DeDartment -
Plannina Division, Citv of Bakersfield, 1715 Chester Avenue. Bakersfield. California, 93301
3, Contact Person: (name, title, phone) Martin Ortiz. Associate Planner, (661) 326-3733
4, Project Location: South of Hoskina Avenue, aenerallv east of South Union Avenue,
Applicant: (name and address)
City of Bakersfield,
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield. CA 93301
5, General Plan Designation:
LR
Zoning:
R-1
6. 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
implementation.)
Annexation of the site to the Citv of Bakersfield (known as Annexation No. 481). The Droiect
site contains 98.6 net acres, excludina road riaht-of-wav and the Arvin-Edison Canal,
7, Environmental Setting: (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses)
West of the site is beina develoDed with sinale familv residential units in the Citv limits. Also,
west of the site is develoDed commercial and residential uses alona South Union Avenue. North of the
site is develoDed with vacant commerciallindustrial structures and is in fallow aariculture land. South,
east and west of the site is in fallow aariculture,
Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e,g., permits, financing approval
or participation agreement):
LAFCO on the annexation.
S:\AnnexationlRes of App/iclzzzz IS,doc
« 'òf>..Kft»
C) ~
>- -
m
Page 2 0~5 r;
'ìRIGINAI
~
N
· i
! eLL
i :3 I:I: ¡¡
e
i ~
>0 ~!<I,
· e
~I~ Z ::::!flI -;¡ N ~~
~
¡:
0." N
"I l-
e
.... i
~ ·
1) ·
I
'" !
0
~ ·
avoII aOœ.lNO.LlO:>
~
""
aVail OOOMNO.LlO:>
w
5
I
t;
;!i
~ [§
ex:>
~
.
0 0 ~
N
Z G J.3311.lS NaSlaWl
Z
0 [ I
- G
~ c
~
I ~ ~ ~
W 'i:
I " - ~
o " 0:
Z " i¡
z II
«
3nN3^V NOINn HJ.nes
Nn"
AlIO D[ I All"
W
Z
:s ....
~
1)
~
I~ I~
I ¡!Ii
I
1 I Bw~
~ nnnn ~nnn n OJ.
~nnn IT
x ~/>.Kf?,
<!;,
m
c-
c:c
ORIr.I~lð'
_ ___..___.__h· __'__"~___""_'_____.__'_'~_____"_^__'~.__'___
'-'-'-~
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
o Aesthetics
o Biological Resources
o Hazards & Hazardous Materials
o Mineral Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities I Service Systems
o Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality
o Cultural Resources 0 Geology I Soils
o Hydrology I Water Quality 0 Land Use I Planning
o Noise 0 Population I Housing
o Recreation 0 Transportation I Traffic
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
negative declaration will be prepared,
. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be
prepared,
o I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
environmental impact report is required.
o 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 has been (1)
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached
sheets, An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed,
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier
environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative
declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, nothing further is required,
~tuf!-4
Februarv 2, 2006
Date
Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner
Printed name
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
~ '?¡¡¡'~~-'9
a ó'
>- :<;
Page 3 of 2t J!J
¡.J C::>
(JRI!':IM^'
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 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 falls 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 pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis),
(2) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
(3) 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 construction as well as operational
impacts,
(4) Once it has been 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. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required,
(5) The "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." Mitigation measures will be identified with a brief explanation of how
they will reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures may be cross-
referenced),
(6) Earlier analyses may be used where, according to the tiering, program EIR, or other 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 Analvsis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b, Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an eartier document according to applicable legal
standards. State whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
this earlier analysis,
c, Mitiaation Measures, For effects that are "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,
(7) It is encouraged that information sources for potential impacts (e.g" general plans, zoning
ordinances) are incorporated into the checklist references, Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
(8) A source list is attached, including a description of sources used or individuals contacted that are
cited in the discussion, 'òMf:
<- .,ç,
0' '<I'
>- """
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc Page 4 of25 ':: f!'
<.) ~
()plnlNAI
Environmental Issue
Potentl.lly
Significant
I_ct
L.eu Than
S'sJnlfl~nt
WIth MItigation
IncorporaUon
L... Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, includingh but not limited to,
trees, rock outcrops, and historic bUildings wit in a state scenic
highway?
c) Sub~tantially 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?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the c-alifornia
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the Califomia Department 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
importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia 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 district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations,
Would the project:
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 considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS. doc
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
o
o
o
·
o
·
o
·
·
o
·
o
o
.
·
o
o
o
o
o
·
o
. ~Mf1
0- ~
Page 5 of 2,t ííi
_ r-
) (:)
r¡qlnl~I~1
Environmental Issue
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 local 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 substantiBI adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,
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, vemal 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 an established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
s,tes?
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?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 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?
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz /S,doc
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorooration
o
o
less Than
Signifiesnt
lmøacl
o
·
o
o
·
o
·
o
o
·
o
o
·
o
o
·
o
·
o
·
o
·
·
o
No
Impact
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
~ 'òMf'-'9
C) <I'
Page 6 of25>- ':!'.
m
>- c-
Õ C)
()Olt:::It..I^'
Environmental Issue
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would 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 Fau t Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? (refer to Division of Mines & Geology, Special
Publication N0.42),
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the city's most recently
adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 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 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 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 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?
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
---_..,------- ---~----,.--.--~~~~.~«-_."-_. ._....._.~~.
Potentially
Significant
'mpact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorooraüon
·
·
o
o
·
·
·
·
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Page 7 of 25
No
'mpact
o
o
o
o
·
o
o
o
o
o
·
o
o
o
o
o
·
o
·
o
·
o
·
o
~ ~M~?>
C) (~
>- -
,.... m
_ r-
C> 0
()P'~''''^I
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
'm_
No
'm_
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would 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 physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?
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 level (e,g" the
production rate of pre-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 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 pattem 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 would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise, substantially degrade water quality?
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
·
o
·
o
o
o
·
o
·
o
·
o
·
o
·
o
o
o
·
o
'<. ~1\II£,-'9
Q ~
Page 8 of 2§. ñi
~ r--
J c::>
,",O~I""'A!
Environmental Issue Potentially Less lhan Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No
'm"", VVilhMitigation Impact 1m"'"
Incorporation
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 D D · D
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would D D · D
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee D D · D
or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? D D · D
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING,
Would the project: D D D
·
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or D D D
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an ·
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural D . D D
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
WOUld the proJect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would D D · D
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 that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or D D · D
other land use plan?
Would the project result in:
XI. NOISE.
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?
D
D . D
~ 'òMf1
Q ~
Page 9 of25 :: iíí
_ r-
) CO
"'t"Ilr'III.IAI
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
Environmental Issue Potentially Less Th.. Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No
Impact With Mitigation ,- Impact
Incorporation
b) Exposure of persons to or re;neration of excessive ground-borne D D D
vibration or ground-borne noise evels? ·
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project D . D D
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in D D · D
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 bee adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the D D D .
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 D D D .
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e,g" by
proposing new homes & businesses) or indirectly (e,g" through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
D
D
·
D
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
D
D
·
D
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
D
D
·
D
XIII. PUBLIC 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 governmentar facilities, the
construction of which could cause significanf environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or otner
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
D
D
·
D
H) Police protection?
D
D
·
D
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS. doc
'òl>l\L;''9
~ if,
.,.,
>- iTl
>;:: c-
Page 10 Of 25 C::>
(JRIGINAI
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Schools?
D
Iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
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?
xv. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC. 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 (Le" result in a substantial
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 level of service standard
established by the 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)?
S:\AnnexationIRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
.
·
·
·
·
·
D
.
D
D
·
D
·
D
·
D
·
D
·
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~ YiA/(¿:-'9
C) <I'
-0
ñi
Page 11 01;25 r::;
'"IRIGINAI
>..
.... Than
Environmental Issue Potentially __ant L_ Than
Significant WIth Mitigation Slgntfk;ant No
...... Incorporation ,- Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 0 0 0
Water Quality Control Board? ·
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of exiting facilities, the construction of 0 0 · 0
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 0 0 · 0
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements 0 0 · 0
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has capacity to serve the project's 0 0 · 0
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate 0 0 0 0
the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to 0 0 · 0
solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered planf or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
o
o
·
o
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively 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)?
o
o
·
o
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o . 0
~ 'òMf~
() ~
.~
_ m
Page 12 of25'> [;
(JRIGINAI
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST
1, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, Kern COG,
Golden Empire Transit, March 1990,
2, Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern,
KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989,
3, FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield
and Kern County, March 1991,
4, Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)(1)(B) and 2081
permits, 1994.
5, Bakersfield Municipal Code,
6, City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures,
7, City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan,
8, Kem County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan.
9, Kern County, California - Soil survey,
10, Kem County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.
11, Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan (below Lake Isabella).
12, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District - Guide to Assessing and Reducing Air Quality
Impacts.
13, State of Califomia, Public Resources Code,
14, State of California, Government Code,
15, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
16. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986),
17, U,S, Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas,
18, Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
19, Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield (2000)
20. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(January 10, 2002)
21, Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan, as amended,
22, Metropolitan Bakersfield General PIBn, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, December 2002,
S:\AnnexationlRes of Applic\zzzz IS. doc
«. ,?;AI(f-1
() ~
>-
m
- c-
Page 13 of25> 0
'JRIr,INAI
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Annexation No, 481
I. AESTHETICS
a, The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5 %. The area is not regarded
or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan as visually important or "scenic". There
is no scenic vista that will be impacted by construction of this project. No impact.
b, 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 impact.
c, There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no
impacts are regarded as potentially significant. No impact.
d. This project involves incremental growth of urban development typical of the area. Light from
this development 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. Less than significant impact.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a, The project does not convert 100 acres or more 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 1.69 million
acres under Williamson Act Contract and under the Farmland Security Zone Contract in Kern
County (According to Open Space Subvention Act fiscal year 2002-03 Application Report for
Kern County Agricultural Preserve Program, prepared by the Kern County Planning
Department, and submitted to the State Department of Conservation in October, 2002), the loss
of less than 100 acres is clearly not a significant change to this resource (0.00625% 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, The proposal is to annex the site to the City
of Bakersfield. The site contains 98.6 acres. Less than significant environmental impact,
b. The project proposal is to annex the site to the City of Bakersfield. The project site is not under
a Land Conservation Williamson Act Contract. The subject site is zoned for commercial but is in
fallow agricultural land. The subject site does not meet the 100 acre criteria as shown in item
number II a. above, The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the
cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act Contract to be of statewide,
regional or area wide significance, The County of Kern (as indicated in the Open Space
Subvention Act fiscal year 2002-03 Application Report for Kern County Agricultural Preserve
Program) does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres as significant change to the
agriculture resource, No significant impact,
c. 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, The subject propertY,<iS>iWítð~
::) ~
S:\AnnexationlRes of App/iclzzzz IS,doc
-
_ m
Page 14 o~ r;
'ÌRIGINAI
acres with one home. The project site is on the fringe of the City of Bakersfield, which is
designated for urban development. The project proposed is typical of the development found in
Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of
farmland to nonagricultural uses, Less than significant impact.
III. AIR QUALITY
a, The proposal is to annex the project site, The project does not meet the threshold set by the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), The project involves the
change form commercial to residential on two acres with the eventual development of single
family residential on the site. The SJVUAPCD encourages local jurisdictions to design all
developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single
category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air
Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) promulgated by the SJVUAPCD, (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 requirements, related to landscaping, sidewalks, street
improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code
requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development
is consistent with these listed strategies, This project is subject to the full range of local
ordinances which ensure compliance with these air quality strategies. Implementation of
existing ordinances and rules will reduce impacts to less than significant.
b. The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 26, table 4-1 of the
Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year, NOx 10
tons/year (GAMAQI), The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2.
Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (GAMAQI), Dust suppression
measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the City of Bakersfield and
are regarded by SJVUAPCD as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM,o impacts to less than
significant. No significant impact with existing ordinances and rules.
c, The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the SJVUAPCD is in non-
attainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVUAPCD. 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 Bakersfield Metropolitan
General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report which identified the amount of urbanization
and resultant air pollution which would be generated within the general planning area,
Mitigation from the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was incorporated into various
policies, implementation measures and ordinances, The impact is not regarded as significant.
d. The record does not support a finding 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, No significant impact,
e, The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors.
This proposal is not on the list of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site
odor problems (please refer to the list on page 27, table 4-2, of the SJVUAPCD GAMAQI), No
impact.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
'ÓM~-1
~ <.r
~ ""
. iíí
_ r--
Page 15 of25) """IOI"~F'
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
a, The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP) 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, and Incidental Take Permit PRT-786634 and associated
Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Game
Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern (said
documents hereby incorporated by reference), Terms of these permits 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 in areas of known dens, With implementation of the
MBHCP, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
b, This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area, but is within
the MBHCP area, This plan, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game
and the United States Wildlife Service, includes ordinance requirements for all development
projects in the HCP area, Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than
significant level. Less than significant impact with mitigation.
c, There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not have a
significant impact on any wetlands,
d, The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the MBHCP),
or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a
corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no evidence in the record to support a
finding that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species, No impact.
e. The MBHCP 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, Less than significant impact
with mitigation,
f, There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological
resources, see answer to IV e above. Less than significant impact,
V, CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. The proposal is to annex the site to the city. There are no structures on the site and no
resources that 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 SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.), According to the Phase I Cultural
resource Survey prepared for the project, there are no resources on or near the project site that
are listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020,1 (k) of the Public
Resources Code, There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of
Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, Less than significant impact,
b, The California Archaeological Inventory (CAI) at California State University Bakersfield (CSUB)
will review the existing literature for archaeological resources for the project site. In anticipation
the CAI would recommend mitigation similar to other projects in the area, the mitigation
measures were developed and will be incorporated into the project, No significant impact is
noted.
S:\AnnexationIRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
~ \>ÀK¿:--9
a ~
~
'::: ~
Page 16 of250n 0
DI~I~'A.I
c, This project is not located in the Shark Tooth Mountain bone bed which is the only unique
paleontological resource identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, In addition, topography
of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy
any unique geologic structure, No significant impacts are noted,
d, The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains, However, if human remains were
discovered during grading or construction activities, further work would be prohibited pursuant to
Section 7050,5 of the California Health and Safety Code, If human remains are identified on the
site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be
notified immediately (Section 7050,5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section
5097,98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions
necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be
notified immediately, Less than significant impact with mitigation measure incorporated,
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a,i. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are within 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 major active
fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond
Poso, and White Wolf faults, There are numerous additional smaller faults
suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which mayor 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 strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and
landslides,
Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City
ordinance to 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 to adhere to all modern earthquake construction 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, Less than significant impact with mitigation measure
incorporated,
a,ii. See answer to VI a,i,
a,iii, Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high ground
water combined with high potential seismic activity, This project site does not
demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact,
See also the answer to VI a.i.
a,iv. See answer to VI a,i above,
b. The soil types prevalent on the proposed site are listed fn the Kern County California Soil
Survey for the Northwestern region. 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 or soil 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 pr{di'''ftt'-1
o <!;,
>- -
1--- ~
S:\AnnexationlRes of App/iclzzzz /S,doc Page 17 of:6 C:>
()RI(ìINAl
issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with
the Uniform Building Code, Less than significant impact with mitigation measure
incorporated.
c, See answers to VI a.i. and VI a,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, liquefaction or other unique
geological hazard, Less than significant environmental impact.
d, See answer to VI b.
e, See answer to VI b,
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a, There is no evidence in the record to indicate that this project 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, No significant impact.
b, See answer to VII a,
c, The record does not support a finding 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. No significant impact,
d, The 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 identified,
e, This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted
1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which covers all of Kern County. No
significant impact is identified.
f, The project is not located within 5,000 feet of the runway of any private airstrip. Therefore, the
project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area,
The adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan uses this 5,000 foot
distance as the maximum for land use considerations. No significant impact is identified,
g, The proposed project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or
evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent
and/or area-wide circulation system. The proposed project, typical of urban development in
Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area
Plan (January 1997), This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of
emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. No
significant impact with mitigation.
h, This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area covered by the
Hillside Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the City of Bakersfield Fire
Department to address the issue of wild land fires and urban development. No significant
impacts are identified,
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
S:\AnnexationIRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
'< 'òi>-.K$-ý
o ~
>- -
¡-- m
_ c-
Page 18 of~""¡:¡!~I'JAP
a, 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
identified.
b, The proposed development will 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. The City Water
Resources Department has been contacted regarding the proposal. The City Water Resources
Department will require, at the time of subdivision, to provide water system improvements to
service the site, but this impact is not regarded as significant.
c, There are no streams or rivers on the project site, Existing drainage patterns will not be
significantly altered, All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to
comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on-site and off-site
flooding, erosion and siltation problems. No significant impact is identified.
d, See answer to VIII c,
e, See answer to VIII c,
f, See answer to Villa.
g. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by the Flood
Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map, No significant impact is noted.
h, The project does not propose any structures within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area. No significant
impact is noted,
i. The proposed project is within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area, but chances of
loss, injury, and/or death from an incident are so remote (the worst case scenario is one event
in more than 10,000 years - source: Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk is regarded
as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and
Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). The site is not within the 100-year flood
plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan
(Safety Element), No significant impact anticipated,
j, The project site is not located near 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 mud flow. No significant impact is
noted.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern which does not physically divide the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan Area, No significant impact is noted,
a. The project is required to be consistent with the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan and the
City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts or inconsistencies with
said policies or zoning regulations. No significant impacts are noted.
b. See answer to IV,a" IV, e., IV,f,
" 'QMt~
G <!;,
>- -
m
.- c-
Page 19 oØS G
'ìRinlNAi
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The project site is not located within an area of productive limits within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area, No significant impact on the environment.
b, See answer to X. a,
XI. NOISE
a, Development of the project will not expose persons or generate noise in excess of those
standards found in the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, The impact
is not regarded as significant.
b, There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground bourne vibration
or noise, No significant impacts are noted,
c, The proposal is to annex the site to the City of Bakersfield, Building code requirements required
for energy conservation will result in a 20-decibel reduction in noise for habitable interior space.
In addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping
will contribute to decreasing the ambient noise levels from the adjoining area. The project is not
anticipated to expose people to severe noise levels. The existing ordinance requirements will
reduce noise impacts to less than significant.
d, 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.
e, This project is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of the adopted
1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which covers all of Kern County. No
environmental impact is identified.
f. This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip and, therefore,
would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, No
significant impact anticipated.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a, The project will annex the site to the city, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as
the project is the logical extension of existing urban development. The area west of the project
site is developed or being developed to urban uses, Less than significant impact.
b, The project would not displace any existing housing. No significant environmental impacts are
noted,
c, The project would not result in the displacement of any persons, See answer to XII. b, above.
No significant environmental impacts are noted,
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire protection?
'< 'ò"'K"-1
o <!;,
~ IT]
~ c-
1 (;)
Page 20 of25 'ìRIGINAL
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz /S,doc
Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire
protection agreement between the City and County, The projected increase of new residents
and new single family residential structures into the City through the proposal 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.
b, Police protection?
Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out.
The projected increase of new residential units into the City would necessitate the addition of
law enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service, however, this potential increase in
service can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed
significant.
c, Schools?
The proposal will be to eventually develop single family residential dwelling units in the city and
generate additional school age children on the project site. This increase may necessitate the
construction of additional school facilities. However, existing school impact fees and increased
property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant.
d. Parks?
The project proposes the annexation of the site to the city, The parkland requirements for the
proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards
of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people, In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land
development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits. Compliance with the park
acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are
dedicated and built in accordance with City standards, The impact is not considered significant.
e, Other Public Facilities?
Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of this
area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These
increases in services are not deemed significant.
XIV. RECREATION
a. See answer to "Parks" XIII d. above,
b, See answer to "Parks" XIII d, above.
XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a, A Traffic Impact Study was not required for the proposed project, The Traffic Engineer
determined based on the proposed project that there will be a decrease in density and any
increase in traffic generated by the project would be less than significant. The Traffic Engineer
determined that the following mitigation measure would be required by the developer of the
project site. The developer shall pay the Regional Transportation Impact Fee in accordance
with the City Public Works Department.
S:\AnnexalionlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
~ ,?>AK~-1
C) <£:,
>- -
Page 21 of~ J!'
o CJ
'ìQlr.:IM^1
---. -.'-.-. ---. ---,-----,..~ ~--_.._._.^_.._-_..-
b, See answer to XV, a.
c, There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. No significant impact.
d, 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 significant impact noted,
e, The proposal would not impact any emergency management agency's ability to access the area
regarding emergency situations, No significant impact noted,
f, The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use be provided.
No significant parking impacts specific to this project have been identified,
g, The project is not anticipated to be inconsistent with any policies or programs supporting
alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impact fees
which in part are used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No significant
impact with ordinance compliance,
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a, This project will be connected to sanitary sewer through the City of Bakersfield and will meet the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, No potential significant impacts
have been identified,
b, 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.
c, Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water facilities, the
construction of which is typically an extension of the existing system. This incremental
improvement is not considered to be a significant impact,
d, 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 water utilities would be
required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.
e, The City of Bakersfield 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.
f, The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant
new or substantially, altered facilities to accommodate this project, No significant impact is
noted,
g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste
reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to XVI. f, No significant impact is
noted.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2801 permits issued to the City of Bake~~1i-
J- .,~ó'
'<I
>- -
m
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc Page 22 or;s; r;
"DI~I"'AI
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the 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 that is less
than significant. Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment.
b, As described in the response above, the proposal has no impacts that would be defined as
individually limited but cumulatively considerable, The project is only proposing to annex to the
City of Bakersfield. The jurisdictional change does not have a significant impact on the
environment.
c, As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings,
either directly or indirectly. No significant impact is anticipated.
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
'< 'òf>.Kf'-1
;:) ~
m
Page 23 of 2S r--
';> CO
'"'IOI("'Þ..làl
Reference List
1, The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222-02
on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003,
2, The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost &
Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, 2002.
3, The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost &
Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002.
4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for
the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991.
5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994.
6, Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Game Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern,
7, Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
8, Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000,
10, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD): January 10, 2002 as updated, Guide for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air,
11, Student Generation Rates, February 6, 2003, Kern County Office of Education, Prepared by David
Taussig & Associates, Ive,
12 Short Form Traffic Study by SmithTech/USA, Inc" October 15, 2004.
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS. doc
I:¡F\K£,p
~ 0'
~- ~
_ m
_ r-
Page 24 Of~olnll11AP
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Applicant: City of Bakersfield
Address: 1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Project Title/Location (include City and County):
Annexation No, 481 located generally south of Hosking Avenue, generally east of South Union
Avenue,
Project Description:
To annex the site to the City of Bakersfield, The site contains 98 net acres,
Finding of Exemption:
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082,2 of 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 adverse 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 the 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,
~~=-,'
(C ' nnina Official)
James 0, Movius, Planning Director
City of Bakersfield Development Services Department
City Council Hearing Date: March 8, 2006
S:\AnnexationlRes of Appliclzzzz IS,doc
'< 'òMê?>
o %
>- -
m
Page 25 of~ r;
r)RI~INAI