HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 201-02RESOLUTION NO. 2 0 1 ' 0 2
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN.
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,
SEPTEMBER 16, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, and
THURSDAY , OCTOBER 3, 2002, on General Plan Amendment P02-0756 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 P01-0756 of the proposed amendment to
the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
General Plan Amendment P01-0756
Mclntosh & Associates has applied to amend the Land Use Element of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of a change from LR
(Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 8.92 acres located
along'the southeast corner of Stine Road and Panama Lane; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an Initial Study was conducted and it was
determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated
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. 127-02 on October 3, 2002, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment P01-0756 subject to
conditions/mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "1" 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 20, 2002 on the above described General Plan Amendment
P01-0756 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use 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 given.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 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
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in accordance with
CEQA.
4. Mitigation was incorporated into the project to reduce impacts (Exhibit "1").
5. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
A traffic study was required for the project and mitigation measures were
recommended to alleviate traffic impacts.
The public necessity justifies the amendment to the Land Use Element of 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 of the Sate of California 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment P01-0756 is
hereby approved and adopted.
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 City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment P01-
0756 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the map
marked Exhibit "2" attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for
property generally located along the southeast corner of Stine Road and
Panama Lane, subject to mitigation measures/conditions of approval shown on
Exhibit "1 ".
That, General Plan Amendment P01-0756, approved herein, be combined with
other approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land
Use Element Amendment.
......... 000 .........
the
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by
Council ~0zthe City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
I~0~/ P. 0 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER ~-.o._
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, C~C
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED NOV 20 [002
APPROVED as to form
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney /7
S:\Dole\P01-0756\CC GPAR.DOC
EXHIBIT "1"
MITIG~ATION
NEG~ATIVE DECLARATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE C;HANG~E P01-0756
Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII are required for all
construction in the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District as sufficient mitigation
to reduce PM-10 impacts to less than a significant level.
Comply with traffic study mitigation measures shown on Exhibit 1. All
regional traffic impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated
according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of
building permits. In addition, local ordinance requires all on site street
improvements and a proportional share of boundary street improvements
be built by each development.
Comply with 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 State Fish and
Wildlife Services and California State Department of Fish and Game,
respectively.
If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop until the Kern
County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any
other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all
work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist or historian.
EXHIBIT '1"
MITIGATION*
Table 6: Intersecfion Improvements/Mitigation/Pro-Rata Share - GPA/ZC ~ Panama Lane & S~ne Road
Intersection/Mitigation = Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of Project's
@ Year 2020 Future Imprvm't I Share of
Project
PHV PHV % ~ PHV (8)
WII~¢~ Laftc & ~ostofd
NOl analyzed bf~yond existing s~nor, project ~dded 5()~6 10 0 17% 6020
peak hour traffic is less tfian 40 (Ex~stln9 LOS "C")
~c ~s~oad
Not analyzed beyond existing sm~ project added 4922 18 0 31% 5783 $0 $0
Whit~ Stine R~
2020: Add EL WL to maintain existing LOS "E' 6061 26 036% 7234 $160.000 $575
2020 + Proj No addit~onar mit[ga~on required due to additio~ of project ~affic
~i~8 Lane ~Wibie
Not analyzed beyond existing smc~ project added 5659 12 0.17% 6963 $0
peak hour ba~c is less than 30 (Existing LOS
~ford Ro~&~acheco RO~ ~
Not analyzed beyond existing since pro}act added 1570 17 0 ~1% 2390 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS
Signal Warrants Satisfied NONF
'~blc ~0 &~achc~Rpad
peak hour baffle is less than 20 (Exist,ha LOS "E )
~o~d & Ha~i~R~
Existing: LOS
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1, 2, & 11
2020: Provide ~raffic Signal for LOS 'D" 1758 32 I 15% 2791 $120,000 $1,37(
2020 + Proj No mitigabon r~uired due to addifion of prelect traffic
~oad & Ha[ds Road
2020 No improvements required for Future 2020 tra~c .~creases 2020 56 2 32% 2409 $0 $0
2020 + Proj No mitigation required due to adddmn of proiect tra~c
~d & Harris Roa~
Not analyzed beyond ex~sting mnce project added 1931 12 0 44% 2701
*From TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR (]onunercia] Project @ Panama Lane & Srine Road
June 2002 2037ts01.xls:Pro-Rata Share-MltJg Page 13
E×}II t~I 1' "1"
Table 6: Intersection Improvements/MitigatJon/Pro-Rata Share * GPA/ZC @ Panama Lane & Stlne Road
IntersectlonlMitlgatlon 3 Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of Project"s
~ Year 2020 Future Imprvm't I Share of
Traffic + Mitlg. ImplMitlg
Project
PHV PHV % 2 PHV (8)
12 ~a~L~_&~)Jd Riv~.j'J:{Qad
Existing: No improvements required, Existing LOS
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 416 8 063% 760 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS 'B")
13 ~anama Lane & Gosford Road z
Existing: No improvements required, Existing LOS "C'
Signal Warrants Satisfied: I & 11
2020: Provide Traffic Signal z 1250 46 2.39% 1927 07 $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1, 2, & 11
2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
14 , ·
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
2020: No improvements required to maintain existing service levels 990 63 3.61% 1747 0 z $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2 & 11
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required to maintain existing service levels
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2 & 11
15 ~_n~.~8 LsEe & Ashe Road 7
Existing: LOS "F"
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2, 8, & 11
2020 No improvements required to maintain existing LOS "F" 1512 104 3 61% 2880 0 7 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
16 Panama Lsn¢ ~ Stine Road 7
2020: No ~mprovements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 2136 341 9 01% 3785
2020 + Proj: Add NF{ $10,000 $901
17 EanaE~a Lane & A~ers Road
2020: Add WL & WR 2t 12 137 394% 3474 S50,000 $1,972
2020 + Prot: No additional mitigation required due to addition o1 project traffic
18 Panama Lane & Wible Road
2020: Add EL, ET, WL, W3', & ST to maintain existing LOS "D" 3542 102 1.64% 6232 $25,000 $409
2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required due to addifion of project traffic
19 Panama Lane & SB 99 Ramps AM Peak
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2699 23 0.57% 4004 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS 'B")
201 Bc, nama Lane & SB 99 Ramps PM Peak
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 2620 71 1.84% 3866 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
21 ~a[~ama Lane & NB 99_J~3mos AM Peak
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2908 17 0.38% 4506 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "A")
22 BaJ:tama Lane & NB 99 Ram{3s PM Peak
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 2466 52 1.32% 3953 $0 $0
~ 2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
June 2002 2037ts01.xls:Pro-Rata Share-Mitig Page 14
EXhIBiT "1" nt.)
Table 6: Intersection Improvements/Mitigation/Pro-Rata Share - GPA/-ZC ~ Panama Lane & Stine Road
Intersection/Mitigation 3 Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of ProJect's
@ Year 2020 Future Imprvm't / Share of
Traffic + Mitlg. ImplMitlg
Project
PHV PHV % 2 PHV (8)
23 Panam~LL~Oe & South~U"~Street
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2201 31 086% 3597 $0 0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
24 PanamaLane &Union AV~lU~ ?
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 1676 10 0 40% 2515 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS
25 Stine I:~;zad & Berksi3ire Road 4.7
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 593 55 4.30% 982 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
26 Wible Road & Berkshire Road
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
Not analyzed beyond existing smoe project added 859 10 0 49% 2045 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
25 GosfDr(;LRoad & McQutchen RPa~ 4. z
Existin9 Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE 441 5 0 39% 698 $0 $0
Not anaryzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
26 St[n~.. Road & Hos~ Ave!tu¢~4'7
2020: No improvements required for LOS "C" 709 43 336% 110t $0 $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1, 2 & 11 (with existing laneage)
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required for LOS
27 ~Wible Road& Hosking Avenue 7
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: I (with existing laneage) 933 16 I 00% 1593 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existm9 LOS "B")
28 ~e Road & M_cKee Road_* 7
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE 275 31 242% 437 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "A")
29 ~/ible Road & McKee ~ "' z
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE 477 12 0 94% 1168 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
30 Zaft Hwv & Ashe B.o~t~;L~fyj~a~4 7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 693 3 0 23% 884 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
31 Taft ~ Ashe Road- PM Peak 4 z
Not analyzed beyond existing since protect added 979 10 0 78% 1225 $0 $0
peak hour traffc is less than 40 (Existing LOS
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
June 2002 2037ts01.xls:Pro-Rata Share-Mifig Page 15
EXHIBIT "1" (cont.~
Table 6: Intersection Improvements/Ml§gat/~,~/Pro-Rata Share - GPA/-ZC @ Panama Lane & Stlne ~oad
Intersection/Mitigation 3 Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of Project's
@ Year 2020 Future Imprvm't / Share of
Traffic + Mitig. ImplMitig
Project
PHV PHV % 2 PHV (8)
32 aft Hwy & Stine Road - AM Pe~f,_ 4.7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 985 8 0.50% 1256 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
33 [afl Hwv & Stine Road - PM Peak 4.7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 944 22 1.38% 1183 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
34 Taft Hwv & Wible Road - PM Peak '~' 7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 1164 14 0.88% 1479 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 30 (Existing LOS "D")
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
PHV = Peak Hour Volume
Not used
2 Project percenlage of future traffic is shown in this column regardless of mitigation requirements
3 Additional lanes required as shown are with reference to existing lanes al time of study survey. Since laneage
configuralions may have changed since time of survey, intersection analysis printouts contained in the appendix
should be referred to for actual total laneage configurations required for mitigation
4 Percentage share at this intersection is based on the project's contribution to the minimum threshold for
signalization at this intersection (1280vph for 1 lane by 1 lane Approaches, 1440vph for 2 lane by 1 lane
Approaches, and 1600vph for 2 lane by 2 lane Approaches)
5 Project created intersection. Developer shall be responsible for all improvement costs related to this intersection.
6 Costs for improvements are based on following estimates for specific improvements:
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (undeveloged area): $40,000
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (devethped area): $80,000
Add right turn lane, paved: $10,000
Add any lane, sthping change only: $5,000
7 Improvements to this intersection are included in the Phase II Metropolitan Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Fee
Program and therefore paid for by project's contribution to that fee program.
Proiect's Pro-Rata Share Cost Summary
Total Cost of Improvements
Projects Pro-Rata Share
Phase II - Transportation Impact Fee (See Table 10)
$365,000
$5,233
$145,103
Total Traffic Impact Fees
Per Square Foot Cost (97,030 sf)
Per ADT Cost (4,340 ADT)
$150,336
$1.55
$34.64
per sf
per ADT
June 2002 2037ts01.xls:Pro-Rata Share-Mitig Page t 6
0
U
8
> g
LL
O0