Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 52-99RESOLUTION NO. 5 2 ' 9 0 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE NO. P98-0960). 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, MARCH 15, 1999 and THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999 on a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: City of Bakersfield has applied to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by eliminating the north-south collector segment between Panorama Drive and Paladino Drive, located about one half west of Morning Drive; and WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, it was determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (General Rule), as there is no possibility that the proposed amendment of the Circulation Element adding the deleting a north-south collector segment between Panorama Drive and Paladino Drive could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 51-99 on March 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of this General Plan Amendment and this Council has fully considered the findings 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, April 28, 1999, on the above described proposed amendment to the Circulation 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 notices have been given. 2. The project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the General Rule. 3. The proposed amendment is intended to reiterate a previous Circulation Amendment affecting the same roadway segment approved prior to adoption of the current Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 4. No city right-of-way will be affected by this proposal, as a vacation of the previously existing right-of-way was vacated by City Council Resolution No. 3-87, adopted in conformance with the prior approval of GPA 1-86, Segment I. 5. Deletion of the Collector segment in question will not adversely affect future access to surrounding undeveloped land areas, as alternate Collector and Arterial route designations presently exist in the area. 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. 2. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (General Rule). 3. 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, approved and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment Case No. P98-0960, a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A." ......... o0o ...... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on APR 28 1.q99 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER (?/1 ~, CITY CLERK and Ex Offici f h Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED APR 28 1999 /'2/ BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield 2 APPROVED as to form: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY BY: f~ ) CARL HERNANDEZ Assistant City Attorney MJM:pas April 15, 1999 G PA-MAR\0960\ccres EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P98-0960 CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT PALADINO DRIVE DELE7'E: COLLECTOR IPANORAMA DRIVE~ Q 0 n- J X ~ b_ J AUBURN STREET '1 I THORNER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Z Z n- O o SCALE IN FEET 1,~ T29S, R28E 19902 RESOLUTION NO. 51-99 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN, AND TRANSMITTING REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P98-0960) 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, MARCH 15, 1999, and THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999, on the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, No. P98-0960, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty-one (21) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian. a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such proposed amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: City of Bakersfield has applied to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by eliminating the north-south collector segment between Panorama Drive and Paladino Drive, located about one half west of Morning Drive; and WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, it was determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (General Rule), as there is no possibility that the proposed amendment of the Circulation Element adding the described portion of Granite Falls Drive as a Collector could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found as follows: 1. All required notices have been given. 2. The project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the General Rule. 3. The proposed amendment is intended to reiterate a previous Circulation Amendment affecting the same roadway segment approved prior to adoption of the current Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 4. No city right-of-way will be affected by this proposal, as a vacation of the previously existing right-of-way was vacated by City Council Resolution No. 3-87~:~ adopted in conformance with the prior approval of GPA 1-86, Segment I. 1:. '~ ~,; ,~' ' 5. Deletion of the Collector segment in question will not adversely affect future access to surrounding undeveloped land areas, as alternate Collector and Arterial route designations presently exist in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. As to the proposed amendments to the Circulation Element, consisting of changes as shown on attached Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of such amendment and recommend same to City Council. On a motion by Commissioner Dhanens and seconded by Commissioner Boyle, the Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the City Council by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac None None I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of March, 1999. DATED: March 18, 1999 PLANNING C~ MMISSION OF : "ITY AKERSFIELD Irman res\r@ S:\GPA-MAR\0960\rcir. wp d EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P98-0960 CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT '1' PALADINO DRIVE i , DELETE' COLLECTOR I, I ,~, I JPANORAMA DRIVEI ~ j AUBURN STREET X <~ i, I I THORNER ELEi~ENTARY SCHOOL Z Z 0 ~' U ),3 LF' ? 8,o0 S~,,,Ai~ IN FEET T29S, R28E 19902 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Appendix I TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 FROM: City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Project Title: General Plan Amendment P98-0960 Project ~peei~c: About one-half mile west of Motrant Drive between Panorama Drive on the south and Paladino Drive on the north. h'oject Lacefloe-City: Bakersfield Project Locauon-County: Kern Descri!lioa of Projeer: A teanest Io amend the CirculaUon Element of the Mewoeolitan Baken~eld 2010 General Plan bv eliminaun~ a north-somh collector ali~ment between Panorama Drive and Paladinn Drive. Name of Public Agency Approvinl Project: Citw of Bakersfield Name of Per~m or Agency Carry'rag Out Project: City of Bakersfield Exem~ Sinus: Mimsterial ($ec.21080(b)(l); 15268)); Declared Emergency (Sec.21080Co)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (See. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); Categorical Exempnon. State type and secnon number. Startracy Exemplaons. State code number. 15061 Co)(3) General Rule of CEOA Guidelines Reasons why projeet is exemll: There is no eossibi~iev that adotmon of this Circulahon Element Amemhne~ as an administrative correction to accou~ for a vrevious street vacation action onor to adolxion of lie 2010 Plan. could have a significant unnact on the environment. Lead Agency: Conact Person: Mike McCabe. Assistant Planner Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (805) 326-3733 If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exempuon finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes_ No_ Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: __ Signed by Applicant Revised October 1989 (817195) Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 21 8.6) Commissioner Dhanens inquired of Mr. Grady if they need to specify what issues they will be looking at in the final plan, or if it was all wide open and fair game, to which Mr. Grady that they would need to specify what you want them to present to you the final plan thars different from what you have in the preliminary plan. Commissioner Boyle plan the issues of the building on the south parking. his motion to include in the final development on the north side of the property, the end of the of the property, landscaping, and the issue of the SmithTech requested Commissioner Boyle something that would make seconded the amended on the end of the building to which he would leave it up to SmithTech, but attractive from Bernard. Commissioner Ortiz Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Tkac tie, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, NOES: None A motion was to adopt the resolution to making approving the requested zone change shown on Exhibit "A' through Exhibit "E" Council with the additional condition that back to the Planning Commission the south end of the appearance of the made by Commissioner oyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, approving the negative declaration R-1 CH to PUD on 5.02 acres as d recommending same to City bring the final development plan the issues previously discussed on the landscaping on the south end of the building, the parking, and landscaping and open space issue, and the block wall on the north. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavom, Tkac NOES: None General Plan Amendment P98-0960 - City of Bakersfield Staff reported that there was nothing to add from Monday's meeting. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked if the Commission decides to delete the collector do they have any way to control the future layout of the streets in this area so that there will be some type of north/south traffic, even if it is not a collector, to which staff responded it would be up to the individuals that came in with subdivisions. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 22 Unless they designate a collector they would design the street network to accommodate their subdivision. Commissioner Boyle inquired if it was a good idea to have such a huge gap between Morning Ddve and Fairfax with no through roads, or no guarantee that there will be a through road, to which staff responded that there are topographic constraints out there, and because of the topography they are not going to get the density that would normally require a collector at midsection. They don't see any problem with the deletion of this collector. Commission Sprague inquired if the property owner had been contacted regarding this and if there had been any reply, to which staff responded that they contacted them by mail, but the address is in Montana. They have not talked to them by telephone, but the owners were all notified in writing, but none have called. Commissioner Sprague stated that he is reluctant to remove that easement without the property owner knowing that it is being removed, because at a later date he can come back and say he didn't get notice. Commissioner Sprague recommended the Planning Commission continue this item until a public headng notice could be sent by certified mail to the property owner to make them aware of the fact that they want to delete that access. He further stated that he thinks that access will be needed at a future time as the property develops out there. Staff commented that there was an offer of dedication on this collector, and that was vacated in 1987. At this time there is no right-of-way. There is only a line on the map for a collector. Commissioner Sprague commented that there is no dedicated access, and there is no tentative map there, to which staff affirmed. Commissioner Sprague inquired if there is a dedicated access proposed north of Paladino, to which staff responded in the negative. CommisSioner Boyle inquired if the park mentioned was on land that was owned by Mr. Heisey, and the collector would be real close to his property, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Boyle inquired if we notified people within 300 feet in this situation or if it is just the property on which the collector is located, to which Staff responded it is within 300 feet. Commissioner Boyle questioned if Mr. Heisey got notice of this, to which Staff responded that everybody within 300 feet was on the mailing list and got a notice. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if the property owner wanted the right-of-way back how would they go about that, to which staff responded if this is approved there is no collector designation on the map. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 23 8.7) Commissioner Dhanens stated that based on the fact that it is vacated and they have made an attempt to notify the surrounding property owners, per ordinance, he would be in support of staffs recommendation to delete the collector status, and would be prepared to make a motion to do so. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to adopt the resolution approving the proposed General Plan Amendment with findings as presented in said resolution, see Attached Exhibit "B" and recommending the same to the City Council. Motion carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavom, Tkac NOES: None General Plan Amendment P98-0968 - Castle and Cooke, CA, Inc. Staff reported that there was nothing to add from Monday's meeting. Public portion of the meeting wa~S apened up. Roger Mclntosh, with Engineering, representing Castle &Cooke stated they just received approval Seven Oaks to add an additional 9 hole golf course west of Buena Vista. to make the street more friendly rather than a collector that nobody uses Grand Lakes. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Mclntosh has seen the layout shown tonight, to which Mr. met with Staff, and believes that Mr. Grady has particular layout in the past, although it was not a because !hey were waiting for the members at concept. is is the first time that City Staff reported that they have something similar to this ~al pad of their application to approve the Commissioner Dhanens inquired if staff could provide an a nion on Mr. Mclntosh's justification for the deletion and use as a basis finding and voting on tonight to which staff responded that they have expressed ~n-support for the original request because it was such an integral part of the us EIR, the circulation element. Just off the cuff, he doesn't think it would be a problem if it was eliminated, however, he is not ready to make a decision, and believes that Mr. Mclntosh could provide the numbers and bdng it back in the next two weeks. Commissioner Dhanens agreed with staff on this and would not be opposed to continuing this matter so the analysis can be done.