Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3879ORDINANCE NO. 8 8 ~ 9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 104-19 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 20 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 178 AND EAST OF MORNING DRIVE FROM AN A (AGRICULTURE) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE (ZC NO. P98-0589). WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield generally located south of State Route 178 and east of Morning Drive; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 112-98 on October 1, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to approve Zone Change No. P98-0589 of the subject property from an A (Agriculture) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20 acres as delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 104-19 marked Exhibit "2", by this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make several general and specific findings of fact which warranted a negative declaration of environmental impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from an A (Agriculture) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20 acres and the Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and correct; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations, as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, Planning Commission and this Council; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on September 11, 1998, in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows single family development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. 2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 3. Based on an Initial Study, staff determined the proposed project will not significantly affect the physical environment in the area and issuing a Negative Declaration is adequate. 4. The proposed zone change is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. as follows: SECTION 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield 1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct. 2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted. 3. Conditions of approval are attached to the project as "Exhibit 1 ", are included in the project as mitigation measures. 4. Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use zoning of that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property is shown on Zoning Map. No. 104-19 marked Exhibit "2" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and are more specifically described in attached Exhibit "3" SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. ......... o0o ......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on D~C 0 9 1998 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ~ DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO CA SON, COUNCILMEMBER O COUNCILMEMBER 0 COUNCILMEMBER 'CITY CLERK and Ex Offici~lerk Council of the City of Bakersfield ofthe APPROVED DEC 0 9 1998 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: BY: (/'~ -- 'Z.~/: ' CARL ~ER~III, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY zc98-0589ord November 30, 1998 EXHIBIT 1 ZONE CHANGE P98-0589 An archeological study shall be provided with any application to subdivide the project area. EXHIBIT "2" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING MAP SEC. 19 T. 29 $ LEGEND EXHIBIT 3 ZONE CHANGE 'P98-0589 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Four parcels of land within Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 29 East, MDB&M, described as follows: 1) The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 adjoining the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; 2) The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 adjoining the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; 3) The East ~ of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; and 4) The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 114 adjoining the Southwest 1/4, Southwest 1/4, Northeast 1/4 and Southeast 1/4. RESOLUTION NO. 112-98 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE BY CHANGING THE LAND USE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LOCATED EAST OF MORNING DRIVE AND SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 187. WHEREAS, PORTER - ROBERTSON, filed an application requesting the change of zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield as hereinafter described and as set forth and designated upon Zoning Map No. 104-19 (Exhibit "2") incorporated within and made part of Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, more thoroughly described in attached Exhibit "3"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, did set, MONDAY, September 28, 1998 and, THURSDAY, October 1, 1998 at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said Planning Commission on said application and accompanying proposed negative declaration, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared and posted on September 11, 1998, in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing held October 1, 1998, the request for a change of zone by Porter - Robertson, was duly heard and considered, and the Planning Commission found as follows: 1. All required public notices have been given. 2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed. 3. Based on an initial study, staff determined the proposed project will not have a significant affect on the physical environment in the area and issuing a Negative Declaration (with mitigation) is adequate. 4. The proposed zone change is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 5. Conditions of approval are attached to the project as "Exhibit 1 ", are included in the project as mitigation measures. THE CITY OF NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF BAKERSFIELD as follows: That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2 2. The Negative Declaration is hereby approved. 3. That Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield be amended by changing the land use zoning on Map No. 104-19 attached hereto as Exhibit "2" of that certain property in said City of Bakersfield as herein before described. 4. That Zone Change No. P98-0589, as outlined above, is hereby recommended for approval with conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "1" On a motion by Commissioner Dhanens and seconded by Commissioner Sprague, the Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the City Council by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the first day of October, 1998. DATED: October 1, 1998 EMLEE October 2, 1998 S:0589 PLANNIN COMMISSION T "1'1"~ E~ BAKERSFIELD Planning Commission EXHIBIT 1 ZONE CHANGE P98-0589 An archeological study shall be provided with any application to subdivide the project area. EXHIBIT "2" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ZONING MAP SEC. 19 T. 29 s LEGEND EXHIBIT 3 ZONE CHANGE *P98-0589 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Four parcels of land within Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 29 East. MDB&M, descnbed as follows: 1) The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 adjoining the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; 2) The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 adjoining the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; 3) The East ~ of the Southeast 114 ofthe Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4: ancl 4) The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 adjoining the Southwest 1/4, Southwest 1/4, Northeast 1/4 and Southeast 1/4. EXHIBIT B ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project No. P98-0589 EFFECT :!i; :!i : :::~i :iMPACT: i~i!i iiMITIGATION ii :ii :i i~i~EFFiECT:;~:!: ii i~:. !iilMP~CT!:~i:i iiiMITtGATiON:::: EARTH Soils Geologic Hazards Erosion/Sedimentation Topography WATER Quality/Quantity - Groundwater - Surface Water Flooding/Drainage AIR Air Quality Climate/Air Movement Odors BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Plants Animals Rare/Endangered Species Habitat Alteration TRANSPORTATION Traffic/Circulation Parking Traffic Hazards AirNVater/Rail Systems CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological Historical S = Significant X Compatibility X General Plan/Zoning X X X Growth Inducement X X X Prime Ag Land Loss X PUBLIC SERVICES : i .' Police X X X Fire X X X Schools X X X Parks/Recreation X X Solid Waste Disposal X X Facility Maintenance X UTILITIES X Water Wastewater Storm Drainage Natural Gas Electricity Communication II POPULATION I IIHOUSING I XIIHEALTH HAZARDS I :i II "" II X X X X X X X (NOTE: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ABOVE IMPACTS IS ATTACHED.) X X X X X P = Potentially Significant I = Insignificant/No Effect Y = Yes N = No ORD = Ordinance Requirement II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one of which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time while long-term impacts will endure we//into the future.) Does the project have impacts which individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small. but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the enWronment is significant). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?. Y N III. FINDINGS OF DETERMINATION (Projects where a Negative Declaration or EIR has not been previously prepared, or where a prewous document will not be utilized.) ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL EVALUATION (check one): x It has been found that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. It is been found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because MITIGATION MEASURES, as identified in the Discussion of Environmental Impacts, have been incorporated into the project; therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, It has been found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) will be prepared. PREPARED BY: APPENDIX I Zone Change P98-0589 I. ENVIRONMF. NTAI. IMPACTS Earth Soils - Consu'uction of the proposed project will result in 20 acres of the soils being insigni~cantly disrupted, compacted, displaced, overcovered and uncovered by grading, filling, trenching, installation of drainage facilities, and other ground preparation activities necessary for urban site development. These soils are not considered "prime" for agricultural purposes by the State Department of Conservation. Standard ordinance cc~npliance includes the requirement for soils and grading reports prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes. Geologic Hazarck - The site is currently undeveloped. The proposed project would not create an unstable earth condition or cause changes to any geologic substructure. The project will not expose people, structures, or property to major geologic haT_~_rds such as landslides, mudslides or ground failure. Although no specific geologic baT~rds are known to occur within the boundaries of the project site, there are numerous geologic fractures in the eaxth's crust within the San Joaquin Valley, which is bordered by major, active fault systems. All development within the Melropolitan Bakersfield area is therefore subject to seismic hazards. Current development standards will require the project to comply with appropriate seismic design criteria from the Uniform Building Code, adequate drainage facility design, and complete preconstruction soils and grading studies. As the site is outside the Alqulst-Priolo Seismic Zones, no special seismic studies would be required for this site prior to building structures for human occupancy. Erosion / Sedimentation - No rivers, streams, canals or beaches are near the project site to be impacted by the proposed development. Typical ordinance requirements ensure that erosion, siltation or deposition of soils from the site by water m-off will not occur through development of the project, nor through drainage of the site after construction. Wind erosion and fugitive dust may occur during the construction process; however, normal use of water spraying will control wind erosion impacts and should not be considered significant. Topography - Project development will not result in a change to the topography and/or Found surface relief features of the area to a significant degree. Water Water Quality / Qnantity - Groundwater - The project will not alter the direction or rate of flow, or substantially deplete the quantity of groundwater resources, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqulfer by cuts or excavations. The project will not contaminate a public water supply, substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially degrade water quality. Water service would be provided for the development by the California Water Service Water District; however, the cumulative impact to the water table would be negligible and insignificant. Surface Water - The project will not result in discharge into any surface water, alter surface water quality to a significant degree, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. The proposal will not contaminate any public water supply. As the site is not located adjacent to or contains any rivers, streams or canals, the proposal will not result in changes in currents or the course or direction of surface water movements. I: Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 2 Floodirtg/Drain3ee - The project will not result in changes to the course or direction of fresh water currents, or result in changes to the amount of surface water, as the site does not contain, nor will the proposal impact, any rivers, streams or canals. The site is not in an area subject to flooding, therefore the proposal will not expose people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff will change as the project is developed. Current development standards require the project to comply with adequate drainage facility design, complete preconstruction soils and grading studies, and compliance with the City Public Works or Building Departments. Air Air Q!mlity - There will not be a substantial increase in air pollution emissions, nor will there be a substantial deterioration of ambient air quality through development of this project. The proposal will not violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No adverse comments were received from the Air Pollution Control District on this proposal. Climate/Air Movement - Land uses intended or allowed through the proposed project will not significantly alter air movement, moisture, temperature and/or result in any change in climate, either locally or regionally. Odors - 1 .and uses permitted as a result of the proposed project do not appear to have the potential to create objectionable odors. Biological Resources Phnm - The 20 acre project site proposed for single family dwelling development is currently vacant. New plant species will be introduced as a result of ornamental landscaping the site with urban uses. A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing plant species, as the site would be completely developed. Although existing species of plants on-site would be removed through urban development. the proposal will not entirely eliminate a plant community or substantially diminish or reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant. AnimMs - New animal species, such as domesticated dogs and cats, will be introduced as a result of occupying the site with urban uses. A barrier would be created to the normal replenishment of existing animal species. as the site would be completely developed. Although existing species of animals on-site would be removed through urban development, the proposal will not entirely eliminate a wildlife community or subsmn~Mly diminish or si~ificantly reduce wildlife habitat. These effects of urban development are not deemed significant. Rare/Endangered Species - Permits and approvals for development associated with this project w~l be subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated 10(a)(1)(B) and 2081 permits issued to the City by the U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service and State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for development projects to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens and notify agencies prior to Fading. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan may be reviewed at the following location: City of Bakersfield, Planning Department. 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield, CA, 93301, (805) 326-3733. Habitat Alteration - Urban development may alter the area' s habitat by introducing domesticated or feral species of animals into the area. The project may result in the creation of a barrier to the migration or Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 3 movement of animals from the surrounding open land. These impacts to wildlife habitat are considered in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan Bakers field Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), and are not considered significant for the project proposed. The proposed project is not "significant" per CEQA, and a Certificate of Fee Exemption has been made with the California Department of Fish and Game. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. See attached De Minimis Impact Findings. Transportation Traffic/Circulation - The proposed project will not generate additional vehicular movement, will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load (volume) and capacity of the street system, and will not substantially impact existing transportation systems. The project will not significantly alter present panems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. TABLE 1 Proposed Project Traffic Generation PROPOSED ACREAGE AVERAGE VEHICLE TOTAL TRIP LAND USE/ TRIP ENDS ENDS ZONING Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Ed., 1991 ~ - Existing parking facilities will not be affected, nor will there be a demand for new parking through the proposed development. Traffic Hazards - There would be no known significant increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians as a result of the proposed project. Air/Water/Rail Systems - The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air traffic. Cultural Resources Archaeological/Historical - It is not known if archaeological or historical resources are located on the site. This Initial Study will be transmitted to the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) housed at California State University Bakersfield for their review, comments and recommendations. All measures indicated by the AIC will be completed prior to any ground disturbance. Land Use Conll~afibili~v - The proposed project will include single family residential types of land uses. The land uses surrounding and adjacent to the project site are planned to be similar, which are indicated in Table "2". Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 4 These uses are compatible with proposed land uses. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals of the community, disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, or create a significant land use compatibility problem. TABLE 2 Land Uses and Zoning of Adjacent Properties LAND USE ZONING LOCATION DESIGNATION DISTRICT LAND USE NORTH LR R- 1 VACANT SOUTH LR R-1 VACANT EAST LR R- 1 VACANT WEST LR R-1 VACANT General Plan/7oning - The present land use designation on the site is LR, with existing zoning of A. The proposal will not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area, as no land use amendments or zoning changes are proposed with the project. The proposal is consistent with the Metropolilan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan policies and implementation measures and will not significantly conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area. Growth Inducement - The proposed project will not induce substantial growth. Prime Agricultural l .and - No agricultural crops currently exist on site and the site does not contain prime agricultural soils. Removal of 20 acres of land through the proposed project will not convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of adjacent prime agricultural land. Public Services Police - The proposal will not affect City Police protection in the area. Fire - The proposal will not affect City fire service for the area. Schools - The proposed project would not impact school facilities to a significant degree. ParEs / Recreation - The project proposes no increase in population for the areas and would not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational oppommifies or create a substantial need for new parks or recreational facilities. Solid Waste / Disposal - The proposed project would not result in a need for significant new or substantial alterations to existing solid waste disposal systems. The development will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control. Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 5 Facility Maintemnce - Street or other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of the area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant. Utilities Water - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. Wastewater - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing wastewater utilities in the area. Expansion of all wastewater utilities would be required to setwe this development, but the impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not require the extension of any sewer mink line that will setwe new development. Storm Drainlge - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the storm drainage systems in the area. Expansion of all storm drain utilities would be required to setwe this development, but the impact is not considered significant. Natural Gas - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the natural gas systems in the area. Expansion of all natural gas utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. F. lectricity - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the electricity systems in the area. Expansion of all electric utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. Commnnicatiot~s - The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the communications systems in the area. Expansion of all communication systems would be required to setwe this development, but the impact is not considered significant. Population / Employment / Housing The proposed project includes a change of zone to allow residential uses on 20 acres, with the potential for a maximum of 109 dwelling units. This site could support 329 people. The proposed project will not induce a substantial concentration or displacement of people, or signi~can~y alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area, or affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. Health Hazards / Public Safety No health hazards or potential hazards to people or plant or animal populations will be created as a result of the proposed development. The proposal does not involve a risk of explosions or releasing baT~rdous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. The project will not attract people to an area and expose them to hazards found there, nor will the project interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project is not on the most current hazardous wastes and substances site list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Cede. Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 6 Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of developmere of ~he site. Typical developmere standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will prevent substantial increases in the ambient noise levels of the adjoining area, will not expose people to severe noise levels, and would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Aesthetics The urbanization of the site will alter the open space qualifies of the area to a minor degree. The proposed project is not intending any uses or development in ate area that would result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, mr will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will not have a substantial, demonstrational negative affect. Iight and Glare Light and glare would increase as a result of electrical lighting facilities surrounding the proposed development and anticipated vehicle traffic. Site plan review of the proposed development w~l evaluate building location, material selection, lighting design, parking and signage placement to buffer proposed light impacts from surrounding developments. Proposed uses should not came signi~cam light or glare to existing or future developmere surrounding the site. Natural Resonrces No non-renewable or other natural resources exist on-site to be used or depleted through the proposed project. Energy Usage The proposed development would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes, including uses of nonrenewable energy resources, during the initial and continued phases of the project. The project will not restfit in significant energy requirements or hck of energy efficiency by amount or fuel type of a project 's life cycle. The proposal will not result in significant effects on local and regional energy supplies or on requirements for additional energy capacity or sources, nor will the project result in signi~cam effects on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. The project will not conflict with existing energy standards, nor will it enc{mrage activities which result in the wasteful or substantial use of si~i~cant amounts of fuel, water, or energy. The project will not result in significant effects on projected transportation energy requirements or in the project' s overall use of efficiem transportation alternatives. II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environmere, 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 eMangered plant or animal, or impact important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 7 The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable or for which the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the efforts of past projects, then current projects, and possible future projects. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Reference List , , 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of BakersfieM, Kern County, Kern COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990. Metropolitan Bakers~eM 2010 General Plan DEIR, The Planning Center, July, 1989. Metropolitan Bakers~eM 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH/18907032, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989. FEIR Metropolitan Bakers~eM Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991. Metropolitan BakerslieU Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)(1)(B) and 2081 permits, 1994. Casa Loma Specific Plan, August 1986, City/County. Polo Grounds/Calloway No. 3 DEIR, September 1989, Northcutt & Assoc./Takata Assoc. Polo Grounds/Calloway No. 3 FEIR, November 1989, NorthcuR & Assoc./Takata Assoc. Baker Street Corridor Specific Plan, August 1986, City. Kern River Parkway Plan DEIR, FEIR & Technical Appendix, June & Sept. 1988, Jones & Stokes Assoc. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakers field Municipal Code. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code. Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan Kern River Plan Element, July 1985, City/County Appendix I Zone Change P98-0589 Page 8 EXHIBIT "A" P98-0589 Recommended Mitigation Measures 1. An archeological study shall be provided with any application to subdivide the project area. app-98-0589 Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page 11 --Ms: Shaw-suggested-additional language to Condition-No.-6 to-read after-the medi island "or other traffic diversion structure acceptable to the City Engineer." Mr. Robertson said that was agreeable except he wanted to modify it to say for than a model home. Mr. Fidler said he would rather leave it at the first' would leave it up to the Commission. Mr. Robertson stated that the builder ,le Carter who has a reputation for being very reputable.. Commissioner Sprague concurred with Mr. Robertson as Ion, contained and fenced, he did not see anything wrong the models were self- Mr. Robertson suggested additional wording could of a building permit on other than a model home Occupancy. to read prior to issuance issuance of Certificate of Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Fidler h, improvements need to be put in? discretion of the Planning Commi.. issuance of a permit for safety. on the issuance of first permit. do we make exceptions as to when responded by saying that was up to the normally like to have them before the Boyle stated that his preference would be Commissioner Boyle a motion and Commissioner Sprague seconded it to approve and adopt the neg; declaration and approve the vesting tentative tract 5921 with findings and set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with changes referred to in the the Planning Director dated October 1, 1998, with a change to Condition 5 of the Planning that it would be prior to the issuance of a building permit on Public Works Condition 4 would be to design a median as pursuant to the was read to them on the record dated September 29 and also on Public Conditions 6 and 7 are being modified to read a median island or other traffic structure acceptable to the City Engineer which would allow for fight turn from San Ysidro to go southbound on Calloway and eliminate a left turn going northbound. Motion carried. DRAFT Zone Change P98-0589 (Porter-Robertson, Eng) Located south of west of Highway 178, east of Morning Drive from an A (Agriculture) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20 + acres to allow development of single family residential homes. (Negative Declaration on file) A staff report was given and staff said that after field checking the site no evidence could be found that should be a concern over environmental cleanliness of the site so staff recommends approval with conditions, The public headng portion of the item was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson stated that he was here for any questions anyone might have. The public hearing portion of the item was closed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, October 1, 1998 Page12 12. 13. -A-motionwas-rnade-by-Commissioner Dhanens .and-seconded-by Sprague to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve zone change P98-0589 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kernper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tkac NOES:None .o.. DRAFT COMMUNICATIONS were no written or verbal communications. CO ISSION COMMENTS Dhanens reported that a meeting was held with staff and developers regarding the side Ordinance. Another meeting will be held October 5 at 4 p.m. Commissioner Bo inked staff for the presentation on RiverLakes Ranch. He thought it was extremel, ;11 done. DISCUSSION AND ACTION POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. A motion was made by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner Brady to cancel the pre-meeting on October 15. n camed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the ion, meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. '.y Planning Directo' pit October 26. 1998 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 10th day of December ,1998 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3879 , passed by the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 9th day of December 1998 , and entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 104-19 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 20 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 178 AND EAST OF MORNING DRIVE FROM AN A (AGRICULTURE) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE (ZC NO. P98-0589). Is/PAMELA A. MCCARTHY City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield DEPUTY City Clerk S:\DOCUMEN'I'~AOPOSTING December 10, 1998