HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 087-02RESOLUTION NO. 0 8 ?" 0 2
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. P01-1018 OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL
PLAN. (VVard 4).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY, APRIL 1,
2002, and THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2002, on the proposed General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 of
a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan,
notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20) calendar days before
said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 of the proposed amendment to the
Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018:
Castle & Cooke has applied to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of changes to the land use designations from
HMR (High Medium Density Residential) GC (General Commercial) and OS-P (Open
Space - Park) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 49 acres located north
of White Lane, generally between Buena Vista Road and Allen Road; 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
therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (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 the city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 32-02 on April 4, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended
partial approval of the General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 and this City Council has fully
considered the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the Land
Use designations from HMR and GC to LR on approximately 41 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment to the Land Use
designation from OS-P to LR on approximately 8 acres; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the change in land use designation from OS-P to LR on approximately 8 acres; and
WHEREAS, the basis for the appeal is to allow the payment of in-lieu fees for th ,e~(~
parkland dedication by the applicant; and
r~RIG
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, May 22, 2002,
on the above described General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 of the proposed amendment to the
Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and the above described appeal,
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 City Council has considered the proposed project, the appeal to the Planning
Commission's decision and hereby makes the following findings:
1. All above recitals are true and correct.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
All required notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed.
Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration was prepared and sent to responsible agencies and a notice of public
hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. The Negative
Declaration was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA.
That this project was the subject of a Negative Declaration and the entire environmental
record is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
The applicant by prior written agreement agreed to comply with all adopted mitigation
measures contained in the Negative Declaration for this project.
That the infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types of
density and intensity of the proposal.
That the project site is part of the Seven Oaks West development.
That the developer of the area and the City of Bakersfield have adopted an agreement
for development of the Seven Oaks West development which includes parkland
dedication and in-lieu fees.
That the developer wishes to pay in-lieu fees as part of the parkland dedication.
That the Recreation and Parks Department accepts payment of the in-lieu fees for the
Seven Oaks West development.
That the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal by the applicant for this
project.
That the City Council supports and accepts the City Recreation and Parks Department
decision to eliminate the park site along the east side of Allen Road, north of White
Lane as delineated on the attached map found in Exhibit 2.
"I~IGINAL
14.
15.
16.
The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practice justify to amend the
Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of
changes to the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) GC
(General Commercial) and O$-P (Open Space - Park) to LR (Low Density Residential
on approximately 49 acres located north of White Lane, generally between Buena Vista
Road and Alien Road.
That the amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan is compatible with the surrounding uses.
That an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision was received.
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
The above recitals and findings are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council in this matter and incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. All required notices have been given.
3. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed.
Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A notice for
a proposed Negative Declaration was prepared and sent to responsible agencies and
property owners within 300 feet of the project site on February 14, 2002. A Negative
Declaration was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA.
That the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 is
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
That this project was the subject of a Negative Declaration and the entire environmental
record is incorporated herein by reference.
That infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types and
intensities of the proposed development.
The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices justify the
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan from HMR, GC and OS-P to LR on 49 acres.
That a portion of the requested General Plan Amendment P01-1018 to amend the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) and GC
(General Commercial) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 41 acres
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
with mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the project.
That the portion of the requested General Plan Amendment P01-1018 to amend the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan was recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission from OS-P (Open Space - Parks) to LR (Low Density
Residential) on approximately 8 acres.
That the applicant submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the request to amend the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan from
OS-P (Open Space - Parks) to LR (Low Density Residential) on approximately 8
acres.
That the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal by the applicant.
That the developer wishes to pay in-lieu fees as part of the parkland dedication.
That the City Council supports and accepts the City Recreation and Parks
Department decision to eliminate the park site along the east side of Allen Road,
north of White Lane as delineated on the attached map found in Exhibit 2.
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 Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 is hereby
approved and adopted.
The City Council hereby overturns the Planning Commission recommendation and
approves and adopts the requested General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018 of the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan from HMR, GC and OS-P to LR on approximately 49 acres, constituting
of changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated
as though fully set forth, for property generally located along the north side of White
Lane generally between Buena Vista Road and Allen Road, subject to conditions of
approval shown on Exhibit 1.
That General Plan Amendment No. P01-1018, approved herein, be combined with
other approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single Amendment
to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
......... 000 ........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on MAY 2 ~ ~""? ,
by the following vote:
4
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
........ AN N
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON ............. MAGGARD, COUCH, H SO , SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNC~LMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER ~'~ ~ ~.~ ~, ~'~
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio/C'~erk of the
Council of the City of Bakersf'ig. jd
APPROVED ~"f ~2 ?.~)OZ
HARVEY L. HALLU'~I~'
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MO:
S:\GPA 1st Qtr2002~P01-1018\Resol~cc , RGPA 1.wpd
'3RIGff~A
EXHIBIT 1
Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No.
P01-1018
Archaeoloclical Resources:
A Preliminary Archaeological Resources Evaluation was prepared for the project site
and as part of that investigation a Cultural resources Records Search was prepared.
The project site contains historic and prehistoric sites. Therefore, the following shall be
done on the project site.
Recordation and analysis of Historical Site CA-KER-3961H has been
determined adequate.
Monitoring during construction activities is not recommended at CA-KER-3963,
CA-KER-3967, CA-KER-3968 or CA-KER-3969. If, however, unrecorded
cultural remains are unearthed during construction, work shall halt in the area
until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds.
c. An archaeological monitor shall be present during any subsurface construction
activities at CA-KER-3962. If significant cultural resources are discovered
during monitoring, more testing or data recovery will be required.
(Mitigation Measure).
If archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during excavation and
grading activities on the project site, the contractor/developer shall stop all work and
shall retain a qualified archeologist to evaluate the significance of the find and
appropriate course of action. Salvage operation requirements in Appendix K of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines shall be followed and the
treatment of discovered Native American remains shall comply with State Code
Regulations of the Native American Hedtage Commission. (Mitigation Measure).
Should human remains be discovered at any time on any portion of the project site,
work shall halt and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). In the absence of an archaeological monitor,
a qualified archaeologist and the local Native American community, shall be notified.
(Mitigation Measure).
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project developer shall perform soil
tests to determine concentrations of pesticide and fungicide residues which may be
present within the project sites. Should contaminant levels be in excess of acceptable
Federal, State and/or County levels, the project developer shall identify and implement
remedial action, subject to approval by the City of Bakersfield and other responsible
regulatory agencies to reduce contaminants to acceptable levels. (Mitigation Mea~..~;
ORIGINAL
Exhibit 1
Conditions of Approval
GPA/ZC P01-1018
Page 2
Mineral Resources:
Pursuant to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (Division)
requirements, active wells and associated equipment within the project site arsa shall
be enclosed by an eight-foot (8') high block wall, with barbed wire on the inside at the
seven-foot (7') high level. Appropriate gates shall be installed and climbable
landscaping around the perimeter of the facility shall be avoided. The inside grade of
the facility shall be constructed so that potential spillage will be confined to the
enclosure. Improvements are the responsibility of the project developer. (Mitigation
Measure).
Sufficient access to the existing and abandoned oil wells shall be maintained in order
for the Division to investigate the conditions of the wellheads and to check for leakage.
If any rs-abandonments are required, the Division shall furnish all necessary
specifications to the developer and it shall be completed by the developer. (Mitigation
Measure).
If any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered, or damaged during excavation
or grading activities, remedial plugging operations pursuant to the Division
requirements would be required to be completed by the developer. (Mitigation
Measure)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, all oil contaminated soil shall be remediated
to the satisfaction of the Local Unified Program Agency (the Office of Environmental
Services - Bakersfield City Fire Department) in conjunction with the State Regional
Water Quality Control Board and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control. (Mitigation Measure).
Water Resources:
The City's normal fire protection service flows ars 2500 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). In
certain areas and in certain zoning, fire flow requirements (as determined by the City
and/or County Fire Departments) ars in excess of the 2500 g.p.m, limit. Fire flow
requirements in excess of 2500 g.p.m, shall require developer fees of $
0.50/g.p.m./acre in excess of 2500 g.p.m, or equivalent facilities. (Mitigation Measure).
10.
Prior to filing a final tractJparcel map, the developer/owner shall record a covenant for
each lot in the subdivision prohibiting the export of groundwater from the subdivision
except by the water purveyor that is serving the subdivision. The individual property
owner is not restricted from using groundwater under their land for use on their
overlying subdivided land. (Mitigation Measure).
"f3RIGINAi
Exhibit 1
Conditions of Approval
GPA/ZC P01-1018
Page 3
11.
City fees for inspection of installation of water facilities are currently at four (4%)
percent of the estimated construction costs ofthe in-tract water facilities. In addition,
a $10.00 meter installation fee for each service will be assessed for two inch (2") and
less in size. The inspection fees are due and payable to the City by the land
owner/developer within thirty (30) days of invoice. (Mitigation Measure).
12.
Prior to final recordation of any map for the subdivision, water availability fees for water
service facilities are due and payable. Fees are authorized by the Bakersfield
Municipal Code 14.04.120 (B.) and set by the City of Bakersfield Water Board with
concurrence of the Bakersfield City Council. As of January 23, 1997, the fees were
$2,000.00 per gross acre. (Mitigation Measure).
Public Works:
13.
Note: The payment of the Transportation Impact Fee is an ordinance requirement and
as such does not need to be a condition.
MO:djl
S:\GPA 15t Qtr 2002\P01-1018~Admin SR\Cond App.wpd
~ OP, IGIN A~
EXHIBIT 2
LOCATION MAP
~RJGINA~.
0
Z
W
Z
W
Z
W
ORIGINAi