The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutROI NO 1449 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 1449 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN LAKE STREET AND KENTUCKY STREET, FROM KING STREET TO BAKER STREET, AND A PORTION OF THAT ALLEY BETWEEN LAKE STREET AND KENTUCKY STREET, FROM BAKER STREET TO KERN STREET WHEREAS, Quad Knopf on behalf of City of Bakersfield Economic Development, submitted a request for the vacation of the alley between Lake Street and Kentucky Street, from King Street to Baker Street, and a portion of that alley between Lake Street and Kentucky Street, from Baker Street to Kern Street; and WHEREAS, for the above-described project, it was determined that the proposed vacation is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of CEQA Guidelines (General Rule) in that there is no possibility that the proposed action could have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. 2, This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 8300, et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, 3. The Council intends to order the vacation of the alley between Lake Street and Kentucky Street, from King Street to Baker Street, and a portion of that alley between Lake Street and Kentucky Street, from Baker Street to Kern Street in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, 3. 6:30 PM on Wednesday, May 24,2006, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place when all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation may appear before the City Council and be heard. 4. This project is dependent on the outcome of General Plan Amendment / Zone Change 05-1930 that has been filed in City of Bakersfield Planning Department. 5. The City Clerk shall cause notice of the date, hour, and place of said hearing on this Resolution to be published for two successive weeks prior thereto in The Bakersfield Californian and the Superintendent of Streets of the City of Bakersfield, California, shall cause "Notice of Vacation" to be posted as required by Section 8323 0~Af\"~ the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. ð- ~ú' :>- ~ f- m - r-- v ORIGINAC' G:\GROLTPDA 1ìADMINRPT\2006\04-2ó\ROII449 _ I _ 6, The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and shall cause the same to be posted on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield, within fifteen (15) days after its passage, __nnn___nnoOO______nnnn_ 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 APR 2 6 2006 by the following vote: ~~. ~N. ~~§~ ~ L.----- L-- L---~ L--- L-- COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER >-+~____ PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk Council of the City of Bakersfield APR 2 6 2006 HARV Y L. HALL Mayor of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney C) / I By: 7»~/¿'/ ~Î[k I ' (/ / G:\GROUPDA lìADM INRP1\2006\04- 26\ROI 1449 '< IJMé'1' o <!;, >- - ..... rTI - ,... ù c:, , 2 _ ORIGINAl - --'- ....--....... ~.. ,--'--,' _._"._--_..~. Exhibit "A" Legal Description "Alley Abandonment" Being a portion of the Northeasterly, one quarter of Section 29 T. 295 R 28 E. M.D.B & M in the City of Bakersfield, State of California described as follows: Parcel I All that portion of the Alley in Block 58 in the city of Bakersfield, formerly known as the Town of Kern, as per map recorded in Book 1, pages IS and 16 of maps, in the office of the Kern County Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the Centerline monument ofthe Centerline intersection of Baker Street and the Southerly Right of Way of Lake Street; thence Southerly along said Centerline S 16° 16' 00" W, 150.06 feet; thence departing said Centerline at right angles S 73° 44' 00" W, 40.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of Lot I said point being the True Point of Beginning: thence S 16° 16' 00" W along the Westerly Right of Way lane of said Baker Street on the Easterly end of the Alley in said Block 58, 20.00 feet to the Northeasterly corner of Lot 32; thence N 73° 43' 44" W along the Southerly Line of said Alley, Il3.73 feet to the beginning of curve concave Northwesterly who's radius point bares N 16° 16' 16" E, 20.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curves through a Centerline angle of 90° 00' 00" and arch length of 31.42 feet; to a point on the North lane of said Alley; thence S 73° 43' 44" E along said North line 93.72 feet; to the True Point of Beginning Parcel 2 All of the Alley in Block 57 of said Town of Kern 1~ VV~¿£' L:IProjects\200S\OS07S I \DOCSIOS07S I_Legal Description - Alley.doc '< 'òAKf:-9 o ~ >- - ... "' - ,... " ORIGINAC' EXHIBIT --------- --------- ~ --- --------- ~ I I i ~ ~. I I 5/ I l -J "B" / j-- I I ) t 7 / / j-- I I / ~ 7 I I L---. / ~,.., ,-t..I.LVG .J 605· ~ ~ 99.94' l' <;.<t'" ~ 4' ,C¢ é >&' ~ 8o!qJt 8'r 7te8'¡0 .90·or;ì- N,.., ~ ~J60600t- 150.06' O' . IS' ;,¡.8 ,"1-0' $'6'" .?o.~~"" ---- I~07' ~ 1 ALLEY PORTION TO B[ ABANDONED l l~z1 <;."'....,. tC'cf'<;.4' 'iI" II ~. 1$ lc1<JtN --------.¡ / 8'JoJtlc1<-¡o '------ Sl;'~o.06· S,O ~ / I I f '" / I I! I --J§ J / L---. $'6' 9,99' 15'/°7 ~o.(Jo' S'6', . 7 /. s,o,.___ 1--------- --- ~ ¡ I I !/ II -------J --- ~ / / CURVE c, CURVE TABLE DELTA RADIUS 90'00'00" 20,00' LENGTH TANGENT .31.42' 20.00' EN.~ V'ò~ SCALE: 1"= %0' '9<1' >- "'" I- iñ - l- V t) NEGATIVE DECLARATION www.cl.bøker.¡Jeld.cø.... 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures. PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment/Zone Chance No. 05-1930 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: March 6. 2006 COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: March 25. 2006 MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required): Cultural Resources 1. If cultural resources are encountered during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the developer to evaluate the significance of the resources and to formulate a mitigation program if necessary. The archaeologist shall coordinate with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. 2. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease 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. S:\GPA 1st 2oo6\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Declaration 05. 1930.doc L. 'òMt-s> . Ò' ~ >- ¡:¡ \::. r paga 1'!?~GINtr INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Project (rme & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-1930 2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 3, Contact Person (name, tme, phone): Paul Hellman, Associate Planner, 661/326-3777 4. Project Location: The 6.61-acre project site is comprised of the block bounded by Baker Street, Lake Street, King Street, and Kentucky Street and a portion of the block bounded by Baker Street, Lake Street, Kem Street, and Kentucky Street (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 014-270-06,014-270- 07, and 014-270-15), 5. Applicant (name and address): Quad Knopf 900 Truxtun Ave., Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 6. General Plan Designation: GC (General Commercial) 7. Zoning: C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone) 8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to latar phases of/he Project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation): The project proposes a General Plan Amendment from GC (General Commercial) to MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) and a Zone Change from C-2 (Regional Commercial Zone) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development Zone) on 6,61 acres. The proposal includes the abandonment of the portion of the alley between Kentucky Street and Lake Street within the project site; this area is proposed to be utilized for vehicular access to on-site parking and for pedestrian access and landscaping. A disposition and development agreement (DDA) between the City, Redevelopment Agency, and The Triumph Companies will assure the type, character and quality of the development and will establish the development requirements and financial commitments of the respective parties, The project would allow for the development of approximately 84 multi-family residential units and approximately 54,084 square feet of retail space, in addition to the renovation and reuse of an existing commercial building on the west side of Baker Street for retail and office uses. 9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses): The project site consists of vacant property and a City of Bakersfield public parking lot east of Baker Street and vacant property and a vacant retail commercial building west of Baker Street. Surrounding uses consist of retail commercial and residential to the north, residential to the east, residential and a vacant movie theater to the west, and retail and office commercial and a U.S. Post Office to the south. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): Not applicable. S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930lEnv DocWegative Declaration 05. 1930, doc ~ y,Mé''9 o ~ >- - >- m _ r- o c:, Page ßI~AI o (\') 0) ~ I 10 o I- Z W ~ o z w ~ « z ::s 0... ....J « a: w z w C) 0J '-;;¡-!lC8 ~S SAla "---- '110 1 ~I'" w,. o CD S< A~ g¡~_~1 ..... en i:ñ :;¡ g¡ ~ o I- Z :3~ I I 8 ¡.. /jj ~ co >- / & 8 ~ METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN Land Use Desi Jnations RR Rural Residential LI Light Industrial 2,5 gross acresldwelling unit 51 Service Industrial ER Estate Residential 1 dwelling unit/net acre HI Heavy Industrial SR Suburban Residential ----- S 4 dwelling units/net acre P Public Facilities SRlLR County: S 4 dwelling units/net acre City. S 7.26 dwelling units/net acre P5 Public/Private Schools LR Low Density Residential PT Public Transportation Corridors S 7.26 dwelling units/net acre P-SW Solid Waste Facilities LMR Low Medium Density Residential > 4 units but S 10 dwelling units/net acre 05 Open Space HMR High Medium Density Residential 05-P Parks and Recreation > 7.26 units but s 17.42 dwelling unitslnet acre 05-S Slopes exceeding 30% HR High Density Residential > 17.42 units but s 72.6 dwelling unitslnet acre R-IA Resource - Intensive Agriculture 20 acre minimum parcel size -~--- R-EA Resource - Extensive Agriculture HC Highway Commercial 20 acre minimum parcel size 80 acre min (Williamson Act) GC General Commercial R-MP Resource - Minerals & Petroleum MC Major Commercial 5 acre minimum parcel size OC Office Commercial MUC Mixed Use Commercial General Plan Street Classification Freewavs provide service to through traffic exclusively with no access to abutting property and no at-grade intersections. EXDresswavs are arterial highways with partial control of access which mayor may not be divided or have grade separations at intersections, and may be an interim facility for an ultimate freeway. Arterials are used primarily by through traffic with a minimal function to provide access to abutting property. Collectors function to connect local streets with arterials and to provide access to abutting property. Locals are exclusively for property access and through traffic is discouraged. S:\Formslzone-gp.doc '< '0AK~1> o <P >- ~ ~ m - r-- 'J to ORIGINAl 0J ~k 'J.& &N3Mo Z "::!0 1 ~I" ~.~ -:r 8: R1~-::J ,..... en ..... 51 ~ ~ " I- 3 0 3 ('i) m T'"" I LO ~ 0 W ¡., ø Iff 3 I! tI) z I « ¡ J: ::f Ü W Z 0 N ¡ " " ....__._---- CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS R-1 One Family Dwelling CoO Professional and Administration Office 6,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size Neighborhood Commercial C-1 E Estate 10,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size C-2 Regional Commercial R-S Residential Suburban C-C Commercial Center 24,000 sq.ft.ldwelling unit CoB Central Business R-S-1A Residential Suburban 1 acre minimum lot size PCD Planned Commercial Development R-S-2.5A Residential Suburban M-1 Light Manufacturing 2% acre minimum lot size M-2 General Manufacturing R-S-5A Residential Suburban 5 acre minimum lot size M-3 Heavy Industrial R-S-10A Residential Suburban P Automobile Parking 10 acre minimum lot size RE Recreation R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling 4,500 sq.ft, min lot size (single family) Ch Church Overiay 6,000 sq.ft. min lot size (multifamily) 2,500 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit OS Open Space R-3 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling HOSP Hospital Overiay 6,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size 1,250 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit AD Architectural Design Overiay R-4 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling FP-P Floodplain Primary 6,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size 600 sq.ft. lot area/dwelling unit FP-S Floodplain Secondary R-H Residential Holding AA Airport Approach 20 acre minimum lot size DI Drilling Island A Agriculture 6,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size PE Petroleum Extaction Combining A-20A Agriculture SC Senior Citizen Overiay 20 acre minimum lot size HD Hillside Development Combining PUD Planned Unit Development TT Travel Trailer Park MH Mobilehome S:\Forms\zoneDistricts.doc ~ "Ak~'t> >- ~ t:: I!' () ORIGINAl!::> ~'tJ"6'- ~'11tQ~~ / - / ALLEY ABANDONMENT ~ & ~ ~ &~:#~ & ~ / / / L /1:; / 1/ / ---J - ---- ?--- --- - --- ~ I I / I /~:..Æ L ~ I" I; ~~ ~ ~ 'f I." / / 7 / I I -J 1" ~ ~'tJ' ,~. / '--~/ 's"l~' ...... i · 7 ""e". _.... _ ----.J ~ r- --- ~ - r-- I "~~ ' ll~" , ð-~ f ~#~ / "~ /f / 1/ /1 ---J CURVE TABLE DELTA RAO'US LENGTH T""GENT 9 .. . 4' . CURVE CI tN'~ T_«~ SCALE: 1·=~· :p~ >- - _ m c> r-- b ~ ~-.....----------_._-~ ~ ~._._~_._..~_...._--~-- ~ . / .L33>U.S ÐND! ,..."" "" , ,IIO'UOI> 3.01.S~ .L33>U.S NN3>I W ~i z> II ~t- . a..W I WW _ t-O::: I -t- C/')C/') ~I i} i! III 11m '5. .~ ~ . I I . i ... ~J . I >·1 =1 i¡ !. i=! Ii ¡III II tI II . I I I I n II II II I I I I II II I . ; ! III. If 1111 .IIIIIIIII.II!. ~!B I'. ~ 0411. E ~ --- )¡ i '< 'òÄKI:", o ''¿p >- ':: Ù ORIGINAlb ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.): o Aesthetics o Biological Resources o Hazards & Hazardous Materials o Mineral Resources o Public Services D Utilities I Service Systems o Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality D Cultural Resources D Geology I Soils o Hydrology I Water Quality D Land Use I Planning D Noise D Population I Housing o Recreation D Transportation I Traffic D 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 neaatlve declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project £2Y.!s!. 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 mitiaated neaatlve declaration will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project mav have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental imDact reDort is required, o I find that the proposed project mav 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 imDact reDort 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 imDact reDort or neaative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental imDact reDort or neaative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, £L{]Jhli Signature Februarv 28. 2006 Date Paul A. Hellman Printed name !< <øA/(~1' C) ~ ;,... - ,... m - r-- o b Page 9.í}19JNAl S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWagative Daclaration 05. 1930.doc 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 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) 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, (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. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. (4) "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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). (5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant 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 Adeouatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 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. (6) 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. (7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. (8) 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, (9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance 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. S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Declaration 05. 1930.doc !í \òAK~'2 c:; II:-, >- - .... m - r-- o to Page 4 Qfj!ýINAI Environmental Issue I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, 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? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: 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 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 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 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-19301Env DocWegativa DacJamUon 05,1930.doc Potenhlly Signlfl..... ...,... o o o D .....Tha. Slgnmc.nt With Mitigation Incorponltlon o D D D o D D o o o o o D D D o o D o o ~-_..__..__._-_..._--_. ""-.-- ._-- .._-- L... ThIIn Slgntflc.nt IlnPIIct o D D x o D o D x No Impact x x x D x x x x o x 0 o X ~ IJMt-9¡pX "- ~ t:. J!] o b pa~' Environmental Issue 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 substantial 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, 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 an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 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? 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 Fault 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 No.42), S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Dec/aration 05. 1930.doc Potentially Significant ....... D D D D D D D D D D D L... ThaIn SJgniftCMt With Mitigation Incorporation D D D D D D x x D x D L_ Thon Significant Impact No IlTIIHICt x D D x D x D x D x D x D D D D D x D D ~ 'i)M~-9)J () '<' >- - t-- m _ r-- o b ORIGINAl Page 6 0'23 Environmental Issue ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? jii) 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? 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? S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWBgative Declaration 05. 1930,doc Potentl811y SigtUflcant In\Pllct o o o o o o o L... Than Significant With Mltigldlon Incorporation o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o --_..- ,---. .,~.--...-.- -.-.--..--,-..------. Leu Than SlgntfiCMt nuMct x X X X X X X X X X X o o No '- o o o o o o o o o o o X X X 0 X 0 ~ 'òAK~l' () if' ;,.. ';!: .... m "0 t; IJRIGINAl Page 70(23 Environmental Issue 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 pattem 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 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 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? 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, structures which would 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 or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: 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 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? S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegativa Declaration 05. 1930.doc Potentl.lly Slgnlftcant ImPllct D D D D D D D Les. Than Signlftc..nt With MItigation Incorpontlon D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D L... ThaIn SignlftcØ Impact x x x x x x D D D D D x No In1ØIIct D D D D D D x x x x x D J \l1\K~'2" D >- ~± I- m - r-- o <::0 ORIGINAl . Page Bof23 Environmental Issue 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 that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan 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 ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase 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 two 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? 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable S:\GPA 1st 2006\OS-1930IEnv DocWegativa Dsc/arsHon 05,1930.doc Potentially Signifl~ Impact o o o o Lou Thon Signltk:ant With MIUptIon Incorporation o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o L... 111IIn Significant Impact o o x x x x o o x x x No '- x x o o o o x x o o o ~ 'òAK~'2 () iJ' "- '<\ >-- ñi - r-- <.) ORiGINAtb Page 9 of 23 Environmental Issue service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? Hi) Schools? 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 facil~ies or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? xv. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: 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)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? S:\GPA 1st 2OC6\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Declaration 05. 1930.doc Potentially Significant lmøllct o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Leu Than Significant With Mltlption Incorporation o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o L... Than Significant Impact x X X X X X X X X o X X X X No '...... o o o o o o o o o X o o o o X «\>þ.~ o ~. >- - I-- n; _ r- <.) ~ ORIGINAl PagB 100/23 Environmental Issue b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of exiting 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 environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements 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 projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to 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 plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Daclaration 05,1930.doc Potentl.lly Significant Imø.ct D D D D D D D D D Leu ThIn Slgnln~nt With Mitigation Incorøordon D D D D D D D D D Le.. Than Significn '....... x x x x x x x D D No ImøltCt D D D D D D D x x '< 'ì>AK~,p o <p >- ." f:: ñï ù ,... IJRIGINAlb Page 11 0'23 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I. AESTHETICS a. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5 %. The area is substantially developed and is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General 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. As of December 31, 2004, there were approximately 1.67 million acres under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County (Colleen Gallo, Kern County Planning Department, personal communication August 24, 2005). The loss of less than 100 acres is not considered a significant change to this resource as it represents only 0.006% of the total amount of land under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts 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 areawide significance, No impact. b. The subject site is not zoned for agricultural use and contains vacant and urbanized land. Subject site does not meet the 100 acre criteria as shown in Il.a. above, nor is it under a Williamson Act land use contract. No 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, This project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself 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. No impact. III. AIR QUALITY a. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) 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 promulgated by the SJVAPCD (page 16 and Section 6) lists 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 qua&I¡yK strategies. No significant impacts are noted as implementation of existing ordinances and rUle~(f ~-?<fI reduce impacts to less than significant. > ~ \:; f!I v Co QRIGINAI Page 120(23 S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWagativa Declaration 05. 1930.doc 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 RaG 10 tons/year, NOx 10 tonslyear (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts), The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by SJVAPCD as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM,o impacts to less than significant. c. The project will not increase any criteria pollutant (for which the San Joaquin Valley is in non- attainment) beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVAPCD. 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 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. 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 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). No impact. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 Department of Fish and Game, respectively, and Incidental Take Permit PRT-786634 and associated ImplementationlManagement Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife 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 Fish and 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. No impact. c. There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not impact 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, The record does not 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 addresse"AK biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development ~itled~~ :>- -0 ¡..- ñi - t- V b ORIGINAL S:\GPA 1st 2oo6\05-19301Env DocWegative Dee/araNon 05. 193o.doc Pags 130(23 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 impact. f. 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 a. According to the cultural resources records searches 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; the potentially significant structures identified at the time the records searches were conducted were demolished following consultations with the California State Office of Historic Preservation. There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. However, it is possible that significant historic or prehistoric cultural resources may lay buried beneath the ground surface. In the event that subsurface historic or prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed during construction activity, work in the area should be stopped immediately until the finds can be evaluated. Implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. b. Research conducted for the proposed project concluded no evidence for a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. See answer to V.a. regarding potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and required mitigation measures, 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 are discovered during grading or construction activities, further work would be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native American remains. 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 modem 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. a,ii. See answer to Vl.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 thr.KÆ; attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to Vl.a.i§ 'to 00- '" \;:: J!.I Ç) () S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Dactaralion 05. 1930.doc Page 14~~~AI a.iv. See answer to Vl.a.i. b. The soil types prevalent on the proposed site are listed in the Kern County California Soil Survey for the Northwestern region. Based on the soil survey, the project site contains soil type 240- Urban Land. 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 prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Unifonm Building Code. c. See answers to Vl.a.i. and Vl.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, d. See answer to Vl.b. e. See answer to Vl.b. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . a. The record does not indicate that 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 Vll.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. d. The project in not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Less than significant impact. 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 impact. 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 impact, 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 area 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. h. This project is not located adjacent to a wiid 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. Less than significant impact. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standa&'í\AIt(:'..p<p and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure that the quality and quantity of surface water ~ flowing from the site would not be substantially affected. Less than significant impact, ~:.) f!! , b ORIGINAl S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Døc/aration 05. 1930.doc Page 15 of 23 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. All water companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide water system improvements to service the site, but this impact is regarded as less than 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. Less than significant impact. d, See answer to VlIl.c. Less than significant impact. e. See answer to VIII.c. Less than significant impact. 1. See answer VlIl.a. Less than significant impact, g, The project does not propose housing within a 1 DO-year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No impact. h. The project does not propose any structures within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area, No impact. i. The proposed project is within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area but not the 1 DO-year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan (Safety Element). No impact, 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 impact. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattem or is an infill development that does not physically divide the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan Area. No significant impact. See Table 1 below. TABLE 1 LAND USE/ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES LOCATION LAND USE ZONE DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION NORTH GC C-1, C-2 retail commercial, residential SOUTH GC, LI C-2, M-1 retail & office commercial, U.S. Post Office EAST GC C-1, C-2 residential WEST GC, LI C-2, M-1 residential, vacant movie theater ~ <;;,A/(Æ"i9. C\ ~. >- -. .- n·1 _ r-- () C) S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegetive Declera~on 05. 1930.doc Pego OO~AI . b, The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts or inconsistencies with said policies or zoning regulations, Less than significant impact. C, See answer to IV.a., IV.e., IV.f, No impact. X. MINERAL RESOURCES a. The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources. No impact. b. See answer to X.a. No impact. 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. Less than significant impact. b. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground bourne vibration or noise, Less than significant impact. c. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. 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 and 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 been found to be less than 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 impact. 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 impact. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project, see Table 2. S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Decleration 05. 1930.doc 1< 'òAli'f1> o <P >- .,., ... ñi - r-- <.) b ORIGINAl Page 170f23 -..-.'-'-'-""-' --------_._.._._-,.__._--,--~._.._~.,...~~ TABLE 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS PERSONS PER POPULATION LAND USE HOUSEHOLD Single Family NA 2.92 NA Duplex NA 2.82 NA Multifamily 84 2.77 233 (3+ units) Mobile Home NA 2.31 NA Source: 2000 Federal Census b. The project would not displace any existing housing. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, with the exception of a vacant retail commercial building and public parking lot. Less than significant impact. c. The project would not result in the displacement of any persons. See answer to XII.b, above. Less than significant impact. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. 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 233 new residents and eight new 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 deemed less than significant. b. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.32 officers for every 1,000 people in the City. The projected increase of 233 new residents into the City would necessitate the addition of 0.3 law enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is deemed less than significant. c. The proposed development could produce 84 dwellings units and generate approximately 40 school age children as indicated in Table 3. 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. S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Dec/aration 05. 1930,doc «. '0A.K~1' o <P >- '"!: .- m - ,... v ORI(;INAlb Page 18 o'~3 TABLE 3 SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION TYPE AND NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL PUPILS DWELLING K-8 9 -12 UNITS Single Family NA NA NA (0) units Duplex NA NA NA (0) units Multifamily 84 x 0.31 = 26 84xO.17=14 40 (84) units Mobile Home NA NA NA (0) units TOTALS 26 14 40 Source: 2000 federal Census; Student Generation Retes - 2003 Kern County Office of Education d. The project proposes a population increase of 233 and may result in an impact upon the quality andlor quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may also create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. 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. Total park acreage estimated for the project is 0,58 acres, 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. Less than significant impact, e. 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, Less than significant impact. XIV. RECREATION a. See answer to Parks, (XII1.d.). Less than significant impact. b. See answer to Parks, (XII1.d.). Less than significant impact. xv. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a. It is estimated that the project would generate approximately 470 PM peak hour trips, which is roughly equivalent to the number of trips that would be generated by the type of commercial development that could be developed under the existing General Plan land use designation, The project may cause an increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and may alter the present pattems of circulation or movement of people and goods. However, the impact is not considered significant because the proposal would not degrade the existing Level of Service (LOS) of adjacent and area roads, Policy 36 of the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires the City of Bakersfield to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right-of-way, access improvements, or an areawide impact fee, These measures would be implemented at the time the project site is developed. All regional traffic impacts caused by this development would be addressed according to the regional impact fee 'òA/Ií€ ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance requir~'Ý¡J> "- .,-, >- fñ - ,.. o ö ORIGINAl S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegetive Decleration 05. 1930.doc Page 19 of 23 all on-site street improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements to be built at the time the property is developed, b. See answer to XV.a. c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. 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, By applying the Planned Commercial Development Zone (P.C.D) or Planned Unit Development Zone (P.U,D.) to a specific site, deviations from the standard parking requirements of the zoning ordinance may be permitted. Pursuant to the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance, a total of 400 spaces would be required for the proposed development; the proposed P.C,D, includes a total of 321 spaces. Parking is proposed to be provided for all residential units; off-street and on-street parking is proposed for the commercial uses, The proposed mixed-use development will help to decrease parking demand by facilitating walking, bicycling, and transit use, as well as through employment of lower income residents many of whom do not own automobiles, Based upon the type and location of the proposed development and the proposed parking plan, staff is of the opinion that all of the findings required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance to approve the proposed P,C.D. zone can be made. 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). XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. This project will be connected to sanitary sewer and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Less than significant impacts. 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 considered less than 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 considered to be less than significant. 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 considered less than 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. Less than significant impact. f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. Less than significant impact. 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 XVl.f. Less than significant impact. !< '0AKl:,ç> () ~ >- - ..... m _ r-- o b Pag£IRIlWAl S:\GPA 1st 200ô\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Decleration 05. 1930.doc 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 Bakersfield 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 consists of an urban infill mixed-use commercial and residential development, including the renovation and reuse of an existing commercial building, within an older, densely developed urban area, c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. ~ '¢M~~ c ~ ;>.. - ... m - ,.. °ORIGINAI(::¡ S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-19301Env DocWøgaüve Declaration 05. 1930.doc Page 21 of 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST 1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222-02 on December 11, 2002, became effective on 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 Kem, June 26, 2002 3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmentellmpact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consultin9) 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. ImplementationlManagement 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, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002 as updated 11. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by: David Taussig & Associates 12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures 13. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan 14. Kern CountylMetro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan 15. Kern County, California - Soil Survey 16. Kern County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan 17. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan (below Lake Isabella) 18. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986) 19. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas 20. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps 21. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 713 Lake Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, March 21, 2003. 22, Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 711 Lake Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, June 6, 2005. 23. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 709 Lake Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, July 28, 2004. 24. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 102511027 Baker Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, March 29, 2002, 25. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 1011 Baker Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, July 9, 2004, 26. Phase I Site Assessment for 1020 and 1030 King Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, August 22, 2002. 27, Phase I Site Assessment for 706 Kentucky and 1001 Baker Streets, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, May 19,2004. S:IGPA 1st 200SI05-1930IEnv DocWegative Declaration 05. 1930.doc ~ "M~'i> a ~ >- - ... m _ l"- V to PagéJ!YIJf'ZrJ 28. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 712 Kentucky Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, March 21, 2003, 29. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 708 Kentucky Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, July 28, 2004. 30. Phase I Site Assessment of Property at 630 Kentucky Street, City of Bakersfield Fire Department, March 21, 2003. 31. Cultural Resourc:es Memorandum, Old Town Kem Rehabilitation Project, Bakersfield, CA, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, October 2, 2002. 32. Cultural Resourc:es Memorandum, Old Town Kern Rehabilitation Project, Bakersfield, CA, Additional Information Regarding the Project's Area of Potential Effect as Requested by the SHPO, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, December 31, 2002. ~ IbMS"1J o ~ :>- - ... m _ r-- v b ORIGINAL S:\GPA 1st 2006\05-1930IEnv DocWegative Dactaration 05. 1930.doc Page 23 of 23 --.',.---- 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 Clerk of the City of Bakersfield; and that on the 2ih day of April ,2006 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Resolution of Intention No, 1449, passed by the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 26th day of April, 2006 and entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN LAKE STREET AND KENTUCKY STREET, FROM KING STREET TO BAKER STREET, AND A PORTION OF THAT ALLEY BETWEEN LAKE STREET AND KENTUCKY STREET, FROM BAKER STREET TO KERN STREET. PAMELA A. McCARTHY City Clerk and Ex Officio of the Council of the City of Bakersfield , BY:~ ~y DEPU C Clerk S :\DOCUMENTiFORMSIAOP. ORD. wpd 'òME:-9 <P ." m l"- e" RIGINAI ^'-'~ .._.__._'--'~-_.