HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 174-01RESOLUTION NO. 1 ? ' 0 I
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPA P01-0571 A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN
RELATING TO THE NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD OPEN
SPACE AREA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance
with the provisions of Section 65353(a) of the Government Code, held a public hearing on
THURSDAY, September 20, 2001, on GPA P01-0571 of the proposed text amendment to the
Open Space Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of the time and
place of hearing having been given thirty (30) calendar days before said hearing by publication
in the Bakersfield Californian. a local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, GPA P01-0571, a text amendment to the Open Space Element of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
The City of Bakersfield is proposing to amend the text of the Open Space
Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to support the
acquisition and preservation of open space in the northeast area of the City of
Bakersfield; and
WHEREAS, the general location of the Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area
(NBOSA) is depicted on the NBOSA map (Bubble Map) on file with the City Planning
Department; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described proposal, an Initial Study was conducted
and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment if certain mitigation measures were adopted to address potential impacts regarding
cultural resources, and, therefore, a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures was
prepared and posted on August 22, 2001, 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 the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation
Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, the Planning Commission, and this Council;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 124-01 on September 20, 2001, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of Case No. GPA P01-0571, as shown in
Exhibit "A", and this Council has fully considered the finding made by the Planning Commission
as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on
WEDNESDAY, November 14, 2001, on the above described Case No. GPA P01-0571 of the
proposed text amendment to the Open Space Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10)
calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
findings:
1. All required public notices have been provided.
2. The provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act have been met.
The proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment if
certain mitigation measures are adopted to address potential impacts regarding
cultural resources.
The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan.
Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2
of the State of California Public Resources Code (CEQA) for the purpose of
documenting significant effects, it is the conclusion of the Lead Agency that this
project will result in impacts that fall below the threshold of significance with
regard to wildlife resources and, therefore, must be granted a "de minimis"
exemption in accordance with Section 711.4 of the State of California
Department of Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the assumption of adverse
effect is rebutted by the above-reference absence of evidence in the record and
the Lead Agency's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The Negative Declaration with proposed mitigation measures is hereby adopted
for GPA P01-0571.
The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning
Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist proposed in Exhibit C is
hereby adopted.
The City Council hereby approves and adopts Case No. GPA P01-0571 of the
proposed text amendment to the Open Space Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown in Exhibit "A", ~ ~ ..~
and subject to Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures as provided in Exhibit
B, attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth.
That Case No. GPA P01-0571, approved herein, be combined with other
approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single General Plan
Amendment.
The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby
directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County,
pursuant to the previsions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and
Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto and a
Certificate of Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 711.4 (c)(2)(B) of the State of
California Department of Fish and Game Code.
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 November 14, 2001,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNClLMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
/~,~.~. CITY CLERK and Ex ~lf~cio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
BART THILTGEN
City A~o7
S:~GPA 3rd Qtr 2001\P01-O571\RGPA.CC P01-0571.wpd
EXHIBIT A
TEXT AMENDMENT
TO THE OPEN sPaCE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN
(GPA P01-0571 )
Policy 11
Policy 12
Policy 13
Policy 14
Policy 15
Policy 16
Policy 17
Policy 18
Policy 19
The City of Bakersfield will pursue preservation of open space within the
Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) (bubble map, on file at the City
of Bakersfield Planning Department) (1-7)
The intended usage of the NBOSA includes open space, parks, trails and other
habitat and recreational uses.(I-7) (I-8)
Develop a land use and trails plan (Specific Plan) for the NBOSA (I- 8)
Encourage the establishment of public neighborhood parks in or adjacent to the
NBOSA as subdivisions are approved. (I-8)
Establish linkages between NBOSA and adopted trail systems (1- 8)(1-9)
Support the establishment of an area for off road vehicle use. Potential areas
include, but are not limited to, property adjacent the Bena Land fill, an area
adjacent Round Mountain Road, and areas adjacent Breckenridge Road east of
Comanche Road. (I-11)
Establish open space/trail linkages from the NBOSA to public and quasi public
facilities such as CALM, Hart Park, soccer park, Lake Ming and the Kern River
Corridor. (I~8)
In the review of site specific development plans, encourage access from proposed
development adjacent to the NBOSA to provide public access to open space and
trails. (I-9)
Where possible, and with the cooperation of wildlife agencies, utilize
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) resources to
expand/create habitat preserves with the NBOSA. (I-10)
Page 1
Implementation Measure 7:
With cooperation of private landowners, utilize all resoumes and programs to
expand/create an open space amenity within the NBOSA area. Resources include but are not
limited to: Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) resources; public and
private grants; land exchanges with private and public landowners; land in-lieu program;
development right transfers; conservation easements; dedication of open space within NBOSA
for impact fee reduction; and community fund-raising.
Implementation Measure 8:
Pursue the ...
· Adoption of a land use plan (Specific Plan) depicting various recreational, open
space parks, trails, parking lots etc.
· Adoption of trail system for the NBOSA which links project area together.
· Creation of neighborhood parks adjacent to the NBOSA
Implementation Measure 9:
Review development plans for the purpose of providing access or allowing linkages to the
NBOSA.
Implementation Measure 10:
Work with Federal and State wildlife agencies, through the MBHCP Trust Group, to
enlarge existing preserve areas and provide for limited trail use and interpretive programs within
preserve areas so long as the integrity of the preserve can be protected.
Implementation M~os0r~ 11:
Work with ORV users, Kern County, State and Federal agencies to assist in identifying
financial resoumes and property which could be made available for ORV use.
S:\GPA 3rd Qtr 2001~P01-0571XExhibit A.wpd
Page 2
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. P01-0571
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL/MITIGATION MEASURES
Prior to approval of any grading plans for the development of trails or other
passive recreational facilities that could impact the mine shaft and associated
features, the City of Bakersfield will retain a qualified archaeologist to determine
the historical significance of the mine shaft and associated features. If the mine
shaft is determined to be significant, a report shall be submitted to the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review and comment.
Prior to approval of any grading plans for the development of trails or other
passive recreational facilities, the City of Bakersfield will retain a qualified
archaeologist to prepare an archaeological investigation to determine whether
archaeological resources exist on the project site.
In the event that material of potential cultural significance is uncovered during
grading activities, all grading shall cease and the City of Bakersfield will retain a
professional archaeologist to evaluate the quality and significance of the
material. Grading shall not continue until resources have been completely
removed by the archaeologist and recorded as appropriate.
Assign a paleontologic monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal
of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval
of earth-disturbing activities at elevations between 600 and 700 feet.
Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, the City of
Bakersfield will divert earth-disturbing activities away from the 600' to 700'
elevation range until the monitor has completed salvage of the fossils. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor will
immediately divert construction and call the monitor to the site. Major salvage
may be shortened by grading contractor's assistance (e.g., removal of
overburden, lifting and removing large and heavy fossils).
The City of Bakersfield will retain a qualified paleontologist to prepare, identify,
and curate all recovered fossils.
Upon completion of grading, the retained qualified paleontologist will prepare a
summary report documenting the mitigation and results, with itemized inventory
of collected specimens. The report will be submitted to the City of Bakersfield,
designated depository, and any other appropriate agency. The retained
paleontologist will transfer the fossil collection to an appropriate depository within
the City of Bakersfield or Kern County, or where possible.
If human remains are discovered, further excavation or disturbance shall be
prohibited until the Kern County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated
the remains pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code.
EXHIBIT C
General Plan Amendment P01-0517
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist
Mit VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
No. Monitoring and Party
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval Reporting Monitoring Responsible
Process Milestone for
Monitoring Initials Date Remarks
1 Prier to approval of any grading plans for the Archaeologist Prior to Planning
development of trails or other passive Conduct Field Work approval of Department
recreational facilities that could impact the and Study project or
mine shaft and associated features, the City grading plans
of Bakersfield will retain a qualified
archaeologist to determine the historical
significance of the mine shaft and associated
features. If the mine shaft is determined to
be significant, a report shall be submitted to
the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) for review and comment.
2 Prior to approval of any grading plans for the Archaeologist Prior to Planning
development of trails or other passive Conduct Field Work approval of Department
recreational facilities, the City of Bakersfield project or
will retain a qualified archaeologist to grading plans
prepare an archaeological investigation to
determine whether archaeological resources
exist on the project site.
3 In the event that material of potential Archaeologist Discovery of Planning
cultural significance is uncovered during Conduct Field Work cultural Department
grading activities, all grading shall cease and resources
the City of Bakersfield will retain a
professional archaeologist to evaluate the
quality and significance of the material.
Grading shall not continue until resources
have been completely removed by the
archaeologist and recorded as appropriate.
4 Assign a paleontologic monitor, trained and Paleontologist Prior to Planning
equipped to allow the rapid removal of Conduct Field Work initiation of Department
fossils with minimal construction delay, to construction
the site full-time during the interval of earth-
disturbing activities at elevations between
600 and 700 feet.
5 Should fossils be found within an area being Paleontologist Discovery of Planning
cleared or graded, the City of Bakersfield Conduct Field Work Paleontologic Department
will divert earth-disturbing activities away Resources
from the 600' to 700' elevation range until
the monitor has completed salvage of the
fossils. If cons~-ucfion personnel make the
discovery, the grading contractor will
immediately divert construction and call the
monitor to the site. Major salvage may
be shortened by grading contractor's
assistance (e.g., removal of overburden,
lifting and removing large and heavy fossils).
6 The City of Bakersfield will retain a Paleontologist Discovery of Planning
qualified paleontologist to prepare, identify, Conduct Work Paleontologic Department
and curate all recovered fossils. Resources
7 Upon completion of grading, the retained Paleontologist Completion of Planning
qualified paleontologist will prepare a Conduct Work Field Work Department
summary report documenting the mitigation
and results, with itemized inventory of
collected specimens. The report will be
submitted to the City of Bakersfield,
designated depository, and any other
appropriate agency. The retained
paleontologist will transfer the fossil
collection to an appropriate depository
within the City of Bakersfield or Kern
County, or where possible.
8 If human remains are discovered, further Coroner Discovery of Planning
excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited Conduct Work Human Department
until the Kern County Coroner has been Remains
notified and has evaluated the remains
pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code.
S:\GPA 3rd Qtr 2001\P01-057 l~nitigation.wpd
NEGATIVE DECLARATION/
INITIAL STUDY
The City of Bakersfield, development services department has completed an Initial Study of the
possible environmental effects of the following described project and has determined that a Negative
Declaration is appropriate, This determination has been made according to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation
Procedures.
PROJECT TITLE:
General Plan Amendment No. P01-0517.
APPLICANT:
City of Bakersfield, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
LOCATION:
The project area is located south and west of Alfred Harrell Highway, east of Boise Street, and
north of Panorama Drive and Paladino Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
General Plan Amendment No. P01-0571. The City of Bakersfield is proposing to amend the text
of the Open Space Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to support the
acquisition and preservation of open space in the northeast area of the City of Bakersfield (see
Exhibit A). The proposed policies would apply to approximately 2,500 acres of existing open
space lands (see Exhibit B). The open space would be utilized for passive recreational and
habitat preservation purposes. The existing text of the Open Space Element is contained in
Exhibit C.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project area contains undeveloped open space with grassland vegetation, ravines, rolling hills,
and relatively fiat plateaus with the highest elevation extending to 960 feet (Ant Hill).
FINDING:
The Development Services Department of the City of Bakersfield has determined that the proposal
under General Plan Amendment No. P01-0571 would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated to address potential significant impacts regarding cultural
resources. These mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a level that is less than
significant. Therefore, a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is proposed for the project.
This finding is supported by the attached Initial Study.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN
(GPA P01-0571 )
Policy 11
Policy 12
Policy 13
Policy 14
Policy 15
Policy 16
Policy 17
Policy 18
Policy 19
The City of Bakersfield will pursue preservation of open space within the
Northeast Bakersfield Open Space Area (NBOSA) (bubble map) (1-7)
The intended usage of the NBOSA includes open space, parks, trails and other
habitat and recreational uses.(I-7) (1-8)
Develop a land use and trails plan (Specific Plan) for the NBOSA (I- 8)
Encourage the establishment of public neighborhood parks in or adjacent to the
NBOSA as subdivisions are approved. (1-8)
Establish linkages between NBOSA and adopted trail systems (I- 8)(1-9)
Support the establishment of an area for off road vehicle use. Potential areas
include, but are not limited to, property adjacent the Bena Land fill, an area
adjacent Round Mountain Road, and areas adjacent Breckenridge Road east of
Comanche Road. (I-11)
Establish open space/trail linkages from the NBOSA to public and quasi public
facilities such as CALM, Hart Park, soccer park, Lake Ming and the Kern River
Corridor. (1-8)
In the review of site specific development plans, encourage access from proposed
development adjacent to the NBOSA to provide public access to open space and
trails. 0-9)
Where possible, and with the cooperation of wildlife agencies, utilize
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) resources to
expand/create habitat preserves with the NBOSA. (I-10)
Page 1
Implementation Measure 7:
With cooperation of private landowners, utilize all resources and programs to
expand/create an open space amenity within the NBOSA area. Resources include but are not
limited to: Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) resources; public and
private grants; land exchanges with private and public landowners; land in-lieu program;
development right transfers; conservation easements; dedication of open space within NBOSA
for impact fee reduction; and community fund-raising.
Implementation Measure 8:
Pursue the ...
· Adoption of a land use plan (Specific Plan) depicting various recreational, open
space parks, trails, parking lots etc.
· Adoption of trail system for the NBOSA which links project area together.
· Creation of neighborhood parks adjacent to the NBOSA
Implementation Measure 9:
Review development plans for the purpose of providing access or allowing linkages to the
NBOSA.
Implementation Measure 10:
Work with Federal and State wildlife agencies, through the MBHCP Trust Group, to
enlarge existing preserve areas and provide for limited trail use and interpretive programs within
preserve areas so long as the integrity of the preserve can be protected.
Implementation Measure 11:
Work with ORV users, Kern County, State and Federal agencies to assist in identifying
financial resources and property which could be made available for ORV use.
S:~3PA 3rd Qtr 2001h°01-0571~Exhibit A.wpd
Page 2
EXHIBIT B
5
!
!
I
I
!
!
!
!
II
EXHIBIT C
CHAPTER VI - OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
State planning law requires jurisdictions to prepare a plan for the long-
range conservation and preservation of open space. As defined by the
State, open space should include lands for: (a) the preservation of natu-
ral resources; (b) the managed production of resources; (c) outdoor
recreation; and (c) public health and safety. Under this broad defini-
tion, open space is encompassed in several General Plan elements including
Land Use, Conservation, Parks and Safety. To minimize repetition this Open
Space Element will deal with those open space amenities not covered in
these other elements.
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ISSUES
There are approximately 215,212 acres of agriculture/open space in the
planning area (see Table I-1 in [and Use), representing over 80 percent of
the total land use acreage. The majority of this open space is devoted to
agricultural uses, consisting of both row and tree crops, and to large
tracts of land devoted to oil explorations. Non-farm and non-oil open
space occurs predominately in the floodplain areas along the Kern River,
with large floodplain areas occurring west of Allen Road; in the steeper
hillside areas east of. Comanche Drive; and along Alfred Harrell Highway.
The Kern River Plan Element establishes policies aimed at protecting what
is thought of as the area's greatest natural resource, the Kern River.
Due to both the size and extent of the Kern River within the study area,
the river offers the highest potential for the provision of regional open
space opportunities.
OPEN SPACE ISSUES
Significant issues regarding the planning area's open space resources are
as follows:
° The planning area lacks a cohesive system of open space amenities,
with many of the area's major amenities including the Kern River,
bluffs and foothills being under-utilized as open space resources.
° The aesthetic value of open space areas and the impact of develop-
ment on public viewsheds should be considered.
o Cut-and-fill grading techniques employed to accommodate development
alter natural topography and ridgelines.
VI-1
CHAPTER VI
GOALS AND POLICIES
OPEN SPA (GOALS AND POLICIES)
The following presents the goals and policies for open space in the plan-
ning area. Implementing programs are contained in the following sub-
section. At the end of each policy is listed in parenthesis a code
beginning with the letter "I" followed by a number. This code refers to
the pertinent implementing program.
GOALS
1
2
3
4
Conserve and enhance the unique aspects of open space within the
planning area.
Create an integrated system of open space amenities in the
planning area.
Locate and site development to minimize the disrupt.ion of open
space areas.
Acquire new lands for open space.
POLICIES
Goals will be achieved through the following policies which set more spe-
cific directions and guide actions.
1
Promote the establishment, maintenance and protection of the
planning areas open space resources, including the following
(I-1):
a) conservation of natural resources (refer to Chapter II-
Land Use, Chapter V-Conservation, and Chapter XII Kern
River Plan Element).
° Kern River corridor
° management of hillsides
b) managed production of resources
o agriculture (refer to Chapter V-Conservation Soils and
Geology)
° oil production (refer to Chapter V-Conservation Mineral
Resources)
c) Outdoor recreation
° parks (refer to Chapter XI-Parks)
° Kern River corridor (refer to Chapter II-Land Use
Chapter V-Conservation, and Chapter XII-Kern River Plan
Element)
VI -2
!
l
i
!
i
1
i
i
m
i
I
CHAPTER VI OPEN SPACE (POLICIES)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d) public health and safety
° hazard avoidance (refer to Chapter VIII-Safety)
Development of ridgelines within the planning area should con-
sider natural aesthetic value and topographic constraints
(I-2).
Hillside development should exhibit sensitivity and be comple-
mentary to the natural topography (I-2).
Require the use of grading techniques in hill'side areas which
preserve the form of natural topography and ridgelines (I-2).
Development location and siting should be sensitive to its
relationship to the Kern River (I-3).
Development on, or adjacent to bluff areas should complement
the aesthetic integrity of such areas (I-2).
Encourage the assembly and reuse of land parcels for open
space amenities as they recycle in the urban area (I-4, I-5).
Consider the use of groundwater recharge lands for recreation,
habitat and alternate resource uses (I-6).
Consider reuse of abandoned landfill areas for recreational
and open space purposes where it can be shown that the land-
fill does not present a health hazard (I-6).
Encourage depleted resource extraction sites to be restored
as alternative open space or developed with uses compatible
with those adjacent (I-6).
VI -3
CHAPTER VI
OPEN SPACE (IMPLEMENTATION)
,l
IMPLEMENTATION
The following are programs to be carried out by the City of Bakersfield and
County of Kern to implement the goals and policies of the Open Space
Element. This listing is not to limit the scope of implementation of this
plan. State law requires that planning agencies recommend various methods
of implementation of the general plan as part of their on-going duties.
1 Implement the programs identified in the Land Use, Parks
and Recreation, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources,
Soils and Geology, and Hazards sections of the General Plan
as they relate to open space.
2 Adopt a Hillside Management Ordinance for the City of
Bakersfield to regulate development in areas of excessive
slope in northeast Bakersfield and augment the Kern County's
existing ordinance as necessary.
3 Implement Kern River Plan Element policies regarding develop-
ment sensitivity to the river resource.
4 Utilize redevelopment techniques to assemble contiguous land
parcels and provide open space in the urban area.
5 Agencies involved in groundwater recharge projects should
coordinate as appropriate to achieve multiple use of recharge
areas where feasible.
6 Where appropriate, rezone abandoned landfill areas and
resource extraction sites to allow open space or development
uses complementary of and compatible with surrounding uses.
VI -4
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist for GPA P01-0571
Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. P01-0571 (Text Amendment to the
Open Space Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Bakersfield, 1715 Chester Avenue,
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Contact Person and Phone Number: Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner
(661) 326-3786
Project Location: The proposed policies will aDDIv to existina open space lands in the
northeast area of the City of Bakersfield. located aenerall¥ south and west of
Alfred Harrell Hiqhway, east of Boise Street, and north of Panorama Drive and
Paladino Drive.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Bakersfield, 1501 Truxtun Avenue.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.) Text amendment to the Open Space Element of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The City of Bakersfield is proposincl to
amend the text of the Open SDace Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan to support the acquisition and preservation of open space in the northeast
area of the City of Bakersfield (see Exhibit Al. The proposed policies would apply to
approximately 2,500 acres of existinQ open space lands (see Exhibit B). The open
sPace would be utilized for passive recreational and habitat preservation purposes.
o
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The project area contains undeveloped open space with (3rassland ve(3etation, ravines.
rollinq hills, and relatively fiat plateaus with the hiqhest elevation extendinq to 960 feet
(Ant Hill). The surroundinq land u$-~ include the Kern River. recreational, and rural
residential uses to the north, single familv residential uses to the west. oil production.
rural residential uses. and open space Grassland ve(3etafion to the south, and
recreational, residential, and open space qrassland vegetation to the east.
10.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing
approval or participation agreement): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked be ow wou d be potentially affected by this project in. voIv1 ..n~
at least one mpact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the check s~n the
following pages:
[] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources []
[] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources []
[] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [] Hydrology / Water Quality []
[] Mineral Resources [] Noise []
[] Public Servicas [] Recreation []
[] Utilities / Service Systercs [] Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology / Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffic
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eadier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the eadier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eadier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is_r§quired.
S~i?~--~ee~--'~' ' Date 8/17/2001
Wayne Clausen, Associate Planner
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
2
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
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).
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.
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.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect frem "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 cress-referenced).
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 Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the eadier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance 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 significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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 outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or []
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which []
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less Than
Significant
Wilh
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impa~ Impa~
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
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
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide 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
criteda 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?
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 US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
incorporation Impact
No
Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
5
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat []
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
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 and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially
Significant
impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
impact
[]
[]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately suppoding the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
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 wildland rites, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
7
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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 stormwater 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 mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant
impact
[]
[]
8
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Xl. NOISE -
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A 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?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Xlll. 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 ceuld cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
XlV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a 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?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
11
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
No
Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
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?
[] [] [] []
[] []
[] [] [] []
12
Revised March 23, 2000
S:\GPA 3rd Qtr 2001\P01-0571\cheoklist ~qd
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist
Response Sheet
GPA No. P01-0571
II
AESTHETICS
The project area is not designated under the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan as visually important or "scenic". The area does not contain any
public scenic vistas. Most of the area is currently under private ownership and
contains ravines, rolling hills and relatively flat plateaus with the highest elevation
extending to 960 feet (Ant Hill). There are no public roads that traverse the area
along ridge lines, plateaus, or above an elevation of 725 feet. However, the
proposal would eventually provide public access to the same ridge lines and
plateaus, thereby establishing public scenic vistas.
The project site does not contain any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings within a state scenic highway. The project area is not adjacent to a
designated "scenic" state highway. No significant impacts are noted.
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve the existing open space of the area, and,
therefore, preserve the existing visual character and quality of the project area (see
Exhibit A). No major recreational development or earthworks is proposed under
the project. In addition, the City of Bakersfleld's Hillside Development
Combining Zone (Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code) applies to 8% or greater
slopes throughout the project area and requires all grading to conform to the
natural slopes to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, any future passive trail
development would be required to meet this standard.
The proposal would involve only passive type recreational uses and therefore
would not create any lighting or glare issues.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
The project area does not contain any prime farmland (see answer under II.b.
below). The proposal is intended to preserve existing open space for passive
recreational uses and habitat preservation. The use of grazing is likely to be
continued to maintain the integrity of the existing habitat.
A portion of the project area is zoned for agricultural uses; however, the proposal
to preserve open space for passive recreational uses and habitat preservation
would not conflict with this zoning. The soil survey prepared by the Unites States
Department of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation Service (1982) identifies
three prime farmland soils within the project area: 1.) Chanac clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes, 2.) Delano sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, and 3.) Premier
coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes. However, the same soil survey does not
consider these soils as prime farmland unless water for irrigation is ava~lable.~
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 2
page 91). No water is available for irrigation within the project area. The
California Water Service Company (which provides water service for the area)
does not provide water for irrigation purposes. Therefore, the proposal would not
have any significant impact on agriculture.
The proposal to preserve open space in Northeast Bakersfield would not have any
impact on agricultural resources. The lack of water available for irrigation
prevents the development of intensive agriculture (see II.b. above).
III AIR QUALITY
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat preservation purposes such as parks, trails, recreational uses, and habitat
enhancement. Since most of the project area is currently zoned for single family
residential uses, the proposal would reduce future potential impacts to air quality.
Therefore, the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the environment
regarding air quality.
The proposal to preserve open space would not violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing air quality violation (see answer in III.a. above).
The proposal to preserve open space would not increase any criteria pollutant (for
which the Southern San Joaquin Valley is in nonattainment) beyond the level of
significance as defined by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
The project is proposing only passive recreational uses and habitat preservation.
Any future trail development would be required to meet the San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District's Fugitive Dust Control Rules (Regulation VIII)
and Rule 4641 for asphalt paving.
The proposal to preserve open space for passive recreational purposes and habitat
preservation would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
The proposal to preserve open space for passive recreational purposes and habitat
preservation would not create any objectionable odors affecting any person
utilizing the open space or living adjacent to the open space. Therefore, the
proposal would not have an adverse impact on the environment.
IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
City of Bakersfield public works projects are covered by the existing Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and Section 10(a) permit. Any
future trail development or habitat enhancement in the project area would be
subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Pla~, ,~
and associated Section 10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits ~ssued to the C~ty of
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 3
Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California State
Department ofFish and Game, respectively. Compliance with the MBHCP
mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant. The
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan also exempts small scale
local public works projects (less than 10 acres), undertaken for strictly public
purposes and incidental to urban growth, from the MBHCP fee requirements.
Large public works projects greater than 10 acres in size are subject to the fees.
However, such projects may also be exempt from fees if open space is provided
for a preserve, buffer land, or enhancement goals are met. The proposal would
not have any significant adverse effect on the environment regarding biological
resources.
The project area is not located within or adjacent to any Kern River riparian
habitat. The project area is located south of Alfred Harrell Highway. Only the
northside of Alfred Harrell Highway is adjacent to Kern River riparian habitat.
However, the project area does fall within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan area. This plan, in agreement with the California Department
of Fish and Game and the United States Wildlife Service mandates certain
requirements that all City of Bakersfield public works projects must comply.
Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than
significant.
Two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory U.S.G.S
Topographical Quadrangle Maps cover the project area: 1: Oil Center, Calif., 2.)
Rio Bravo Ranch, Calif. The Oil Center, Calif. map illustrates two wetlands
within the boundaries of the project area. The first one is located just south of
Alfred Harrell Highway in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 36, T. 28 S., R. 28 E., M.D.B.M. (see Attachment A). The National
Wetlands Inventory Oil Center, Calif. map identifies the wetland as Palustrine
Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded (PUBH). This constructed basin is
actually within the boundaries of Hart Memorial Park, and, therefore, would not
be included or impacted by any future trail development program. There would
be no adverse impact to this identified wetland.
The other wetland is located just north of Panorama Drive in the northwest quarter
of Section 14, T. 29 S., R. 28 E., M.D.B.M. (see Attachment B). The National
Wetlands Inventory Oil Center, Calif. map identifies the wetland as Palustrine
Emergent Seasonally Flooded Excavated (PEMCx). The excavated basin has
been removed by road construction. There would be no adverse impact to this
identified wetland.
The National Wetlands Inventory Rio Bravo Ranch, Calif., map does not identify
any wetlands within the eastern portion of the project area (see Attachment C).
The project area is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife ~'-'
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 4
corridor in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan), or along a
canal which has been identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Services as a
corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is no evidence in the record
that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No significant
impacts are noted.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan has been adopted as
policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts
within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The proposal to preserve
open space for passive recreational purposes would be required to comply with
this plan and therefore will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or
ordinance. No significant impacts are noted.
There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to
biological resources, see answer to IV.e. above.
V CULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no resoumes listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical
Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resoumes (Public Resoumes Code Sec. 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et.
seq.). There are no resources on the project area which are listed in a local register
of historical resoumes, as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resource
Code. There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of
Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resoumes Code. See discussion in V.b. below.
However, there is a mine shaft and associated cement footings located in the
southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, T.29S., R.29E., or just east
of the Morning Drive alignment. The mine shaft has a metal canopy at the
entrance. The entrance has been welded shut with metal plating and filled in with
boulders and dirt. An archaeological assessment prepared for the Northeast
Bakersfield Bike Path and Water Facilities Project (GPA 98-0039) in June 1998
reported that no information was available to determine the age or function of the
features. To ensure that the proposal would not significantly impact the mine
shaft and associated features as a historical resource, the following mitigation
measure is proposed:
"Prior to approval of any grading plans for the development of trails
or other passive recreational facilities that could impact the mine
shaft and associated features, the City of Bakersfield will retain a
qualified archaeologist to determine the historical significance of the
mine shaft and associated features. If the mine shaft is determined to
be significant, a report shall be submitted to the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) for review and comment."
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 5
The project area is also likely to contain both prehistoric and historic
archaeological artifacts. The archaeological assessment prepared for the
Northeast Bakersfield Bike Path and Water Facilities Project (GPA 98-0039) in
June 1998 reported that the following site was located within the project area:
CA-KER-2579. To ensure that the proposal would not impact any archaeological
resources within the project area, the following mitigation measures are proposed:
"1.) Prior to approval of any grading plans for the development of
trails or other passive recreational facilities, the City of Bakersfield
will retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare an archaeological
investigation to determine whether archaeological resources exist on
the project site."
"2.) In the event that material of potential cultural significance is
uncovered during grading activities, all grading shall cease and the
City of Bakersfield will retain a professional archaeologist to evaluate
the quality and significance of the material. Grading shall not
continue until resources have been completely removed by the
archaeologist and recorded as appropriate."
A series of Miocene to recent sediments characterize the geology of the project
area. The most important regarding paleontological resources is the Round
Mountain Silt Member, Temblor Formation (middle Miocene), which includes the
Shark Tooth Hill bonebed. The Shark Tooth Hill bonebed is approximately a foot
thick and lies at elevations between 600 and 700 feet. The paleontological
resources assessment prepared for the Northeast Bakersfield Bike Path and Water
Facilities Project in June 1998 (GPA 98-0039) reported that the Shark Tooth Hill
bonebed is of extremely high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, to ensure that
paleontological resources are adequately collected during future earth-disturbing
activities between the elevations of 600 and 700 feet, and preserved in a recognized
depository for future study, the following mitigation measures are proposed for the
project area:
"1.) Assign a paleontologic monitor, trained and equipped to allow the
rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site
full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities at elevations
between 600 and 700 feet."
"2.) Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded,
the City of Bakersfield will divert earth-disturbing activities away
from the 600' to 700' elevation range until the monitor has completed
salvage of the fossils. If construction personnel make the discovery, t~he
grading contractor will immediately divert construction and call ~
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 6
monitor to the site. Major salvage may be shortened by grading
contractor's assistance (e.g., removal of overburden, lifting and
removing large and heavy fossils)."
"3.) The City of Bakersfield will retain a qualified paleontologist to
prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils."
"4.) Upon completion of grading, the retained qualified paleontologist
will prepare a summary report documenting the mitigation and
results, with itemized inventory of collected specimens. The report will
be submitted to the City of Bakersfield, designated depository, and any
other appropriate agency. The retained paleontologist will transfer the
fossil collection to an appropriate depository."
There is no evidence to indicate that the proposal would disturb any human
remains. However, if human remains were discovered, further excavation or
disturbance 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 Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources
Code specify the treatment and disposition of the human remains. The following
mitigation measure is proposed to address the possibility of human remains being
discovered during future trail development or habitat enhancement projects:
"If human remains are discovered, further excavation or disturbance
shall be prohibited until the Kern County Coroner has been notified
and has evaluated the remains pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code."
VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Bakersfield, located in the San Joaquin Valley, has been a seismically active area.
According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault
systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these fault
systems are the San Andreas (44 miles from the project area), the Breckenridge-
Kern County (20 miles from the project area), the Garlock (30 miles from project
area), the Pond Poso (7 miles from the project area) and the White Wolf (15 miles
from the project area). There are numerous additional faults suspected to occur
within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have
a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern
Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area
involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and earthquake induced
landslides. The Alquist Priolo Special Study Zone does traverse the project site.
However, the project is only proposing to preserve open space for passive
recreational and habitat protection purposes.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 7
a.ii. See answer to VI.a.i.
a.iii.
Liquefaction potential is a combination of soil type, ground water depth and
seismic activity. The project area does not demonstrate the three attributes
necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to a VII i.
a.iv. See answer to VI.a.i.
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. No future trail development program or habitat
preservation program would lead to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Any
City public works project would be subject to City ordinances and standards
relative to soils and geology.
See answers to VI. a.i. and VI. a.ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of
Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological
Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction
or other unique geological hazard.
d. See answer to VI. b.
e. See answer to VI. b.
VII
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes.
b. See answer to VII. a.
¢. See answer to VII. a.
This project area is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous
materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore,
the project would not have an adverse impact on the environment.
The project area is not located within any area subject to the land use restrictions of
the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (1996). Therefore, the
project would not have an adverse impact on the environment.
f. See answer to VII. e.
The proposal is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous
Materials Area Plan (Jan. 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provi~S
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 8
coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous
materials incident.
The project area does include wild land areas. However, the only purpose of the
proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and habitat protection
purposes. No aspect of the proposal would prevent the City of Bakersfield Fire
Department or other emergency management agencies from responding to a fire
within the project area.
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. No significant impact is anticipated.
b. See answer to VIII. a.
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. Any future trail development would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have a significant effect on the environment.
d. See answer to VIII. c.
e. See answer to VIII. c.
f. See answer VIII. a. and VIII. c.
g. See answer VIII. a.
h. See answer VIII. a.
The project area is not within the Lake Isabella failure inundation area as depicted
on Figure VIII-2 of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan (Safety
Element), which describes that the chances of loss, injury, and/or death are so
remote (worst case scenario, one event in more than 10,000 years, Bakersfield
Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk involved is regarded as insignificant (reference
also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for County and Greater Bakersfield
Area below Lake Isabella Dam).
jo
The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is,
therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The project area is not subject
mudflows. No significant impact is noted.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 9
IX LAND USE AND PLANNING
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. The proposal would serve the entire Metropolitan
Bakersfield Area.
The proposal is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. There are no identified conflicts
with policies or ordinances which were established to avoid or mitigate
environmental effects. No significant impact is noted.
c. See answer to IV.a, IV.e., & IV.f.
X MINERAL RESOURCES
ao
A portion of the project area is located within the administrative boundaries of the
Kern Bluff Oil Field, see figure V-3 Conservation Element, Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open
space for passive recreational and habitat protection purposes. The project does
not propose to restrict oil production in the area. The proposal would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
b. See answer to X.a.
XI NOISE
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. No significant impact is anticipated.
b. See answer to XI.a.
c. See answer to XI.a.
d. See answer to XLa.
The project area is not located within an area subject to the land use restrictions of
the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (1996). No impact is
identified.
f. The project area is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of a private airstrip.
XII POPULATION AND HOUSING
ao
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and ~
habitat protection purposes. Most of the project area is currently zoned for ~,-~'
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 10
residential uses. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the
northeast ama of the City of Bakersfield or the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area.
The proposal would not displace any existing housing. The project area is not
developed and contains open space grasslands. No significant impacts are noted.
The project will not result in the displacement of any persons. No significant
impact is noted.
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protection?
Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through
a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The proposal
would not necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain
current levels of service for the area. No aspect of the proposal would prevent the
City of Bakersfield Fire Department or other emergency management agencies
from responding to a fire within the project area.
Police Protection?
Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. No
aspect of the proposal would prevent the City of Bakersfield Police Department or
other emergency management agencies from responding to an emergency within
the project area.
Schools?
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. The project would not generate additional housing.
Therefore, no additional school-age children would be generated by the proposal.
Parks?
The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and habitat
protection purposes. The project would not result in an increase of population for the area
and would not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities or create a substantial need for new parks or recreational facilities.
Other Public Facilities?
Other public facility improvements may be needed with the development of trials in the
project area, which may result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the~ 61it~t,9~
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 11
Bakersfield. However, these increases in services are not deemed significant.
XIV RECREATION
a. See answer to "Parks".
b. See answer to "Parks ".
XV TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. Most of the project area is currently zoned for
residential uses. Therefore, preserving the area for open space would not cause any
increase in traffic.
b. See answer to XV.a..
c. See answer to XV.a..
d. See answer to XV.a..
e. All projects are by ordinance subject to the access requirements of the City of
Bakersfield Fire Department which includes an evaluation of adequate emergency
access. No significant impact noted.
f. The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use
be provided. No significant parking impacts specific to this project have been
identified.
g. The project is not anticipated to be inconsistent in any way with policies or
programs supporting alternative transportation.
XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. The proposal does not involve any issue regarding
wastewater treatment.
b. The purpose of the proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and
habitat protection purposes. The proposal would not require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities.
See answer to XVI.b.
See answer to XVI.b.
Initial Study Checklist Response
GPA P01-0571
Page 12
e. See answer to XVI.b.
f. See answer to XVI.b.
g. See answer to XVI.b.
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ao
Any future trail development or habitat preservation would be subject to the terms
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section
10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California State Department of Fish
and Game, respectively. 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.
As described in the responses above, the proposal has no impacts that would be
defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The purpose of the
proposal is to preserve open space for passive recreational and habitat protection
purposes.
Co
As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Reference List
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and Appendices, City of Bakersfield, Kern County,
Kern COG, Golden Empire Transit, March 1990.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan DEIR, The Planning Center, July, 1989.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan FEIR, SCH #8907032, City of Bakersfield, County of
Kern, KCOG, Golden Empire Transit, September, 1989.
FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Thomas Reid Associates for the City of
Bakersfield and Kern County, March 1991.
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10(a)(1 )(B)
and 2081 permits, 1994.
Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.
Final EIR for Northeast Bakersfield Bike Path and Water Facilities Project, General Plan
Amendment No. P98-0039, SCH #98061019, Michael Brandman Associates for the City of
Bakersfield, September, 1998.
Three Girls and A Shovel. An Archaeological Assessment for the City of Bakersfield Bike Path,
Holding Ponds, 36 Inch Water Pi0pe, and 40 Acre Water Facility, Bakersfield, Kern County,
California. June 1998.
Michael Brandman Associates. Paleontologic Resources Assessment of the Northeast
Bakersfield Bike Path and Water Facilities Project, Kern County, California. July 6, 1998.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwest Part. 1982.
S:\GPA 3rd Qtr 2001~01-057 l~References.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
n~41 r
RIO BRAVO RANC~ CALIF.~~
~QNSULTING AGENCY LIST
(P01.0571)
CITY CONTACTS COUNTY REGIONAL
~X PARKS & REC - ~X PLAN. & DEV. ~ KERN COG
Stan Ford ~X PW __ LAFCO
~ BUILDING - D. Fidler __ HEALTH __ MOS. ABATE DIST.
__ ED. - __ AIR POL. CONTROL ~ N. BKS. PARK/REC.
__ C.D. - G. Gonzales ~_X FIRE __ BEAR M. PARK DIS.
__ REDEV. - D. Barnes __ LAW LIBRARY __ GRTER BAK GRADE
X~_ FIRE - R. Frazc __ BEALE LIBRARY SEP. DIST.
~ POLICE - E. Matlock __ HSG. AUTHORITY ~X ARCHAEOLOGY 1NV.
X_~ PW - M. Shaw __ COMMUNITY DEV (CSUB)
~ TRAFFIC - S. Walker __ AIRPORTS ~X GET
X__.. GEN. SERVICES - ~ PARKS/REC. X___ HIST. PRESV. COM.
~ STREETS - ~ SHERIFF ~ KERN COUNTY WATER
__ WW - J. Turner ~ SUPERVISORS AGENCY
(8101 Ashe Rd.) Jon McQuiston, District I
~ WATER RESOURCES - Barbara Patrick, District 3 __ N. OF IL SANITATION
P. Hauptman __ KERN RIV. LEVEE DIST
~X SOLH) WASTE - K. Barnes __ OTHER __ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
__ OTHER
X.~ SCHOOL DIST. FACILITY
(S. Hartsel)
__ KERN. SUP. SCHOOLS
~ BAK. CITY SCH DIST.
-- KERN HS DIST.
-- KERN COM. COLLEGE DIST
__ BKSFD. COLLEGE
__ CSUB
-- OTHER
DEVELOPMENTAL STATE ENVIRO~AL/FEDERAL
-- SC GAS ~X STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ENVIRON1VIENTAL
X__._ SC Edison Electric (15 copies) __ NATURE CON
Tower Lines __ HIGHWAY PATROL ~ SIERRA CLUB
X__ SC Edison __ PUC X_._ KERN PARKWAY COMM.
X__ PG&E (Bak) __ DEPT. TRANS/AERO X__ AUDUBON SOCIETY
__ PGE Gas Traas Lines ~ FISH & GAME __ OTHER
X__ CAL WATER __ WATER RESOURCES X__ SMART GROWTH
X__ PACIFIC BELL X__ DEPT CONS. COALITION OF KERN
__ COX CABLE ~ DIV. MINES/GEOLOGY COUNTY
-- WARNER CABLE ~ DIV. OIL & GAS ~ NATIVE AMERICAN
-- BRD OF REALTORS -- HSG & COMM DEV. HERITAGE PRESERVATION
-- AIA ~ RWQCB (Reg. Wtr. Quad ~ L.A. COUNTY MUSEUM
__ BLDERS EXCHG X._~_CALTRANS ~ BUENA VISTA MUSEUM
X__._ BIA __ BD. OF EQUALIZATION ~ SHARKTOOTH HILL FDN
__ BLDG TRADES CNCL __ OTHER
__ BOARD OF TRADE FEDERAL
__ EC DEV. COMM. __ POST OFFICE
__ DWNTWN BUS ASSOC ~ BUREAU OF LAND MGT.
__ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE __ SOIL CONSERVATION
-- BURLINGTON NORTHERN X~_ FISH & WILDLIFE
SANTA FE RR -- OTHER
-- UNION PACIFIC RR
-- OTHER