Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 56-99RESOLUTION NO. 5 6 ' 9 9 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P99-0054 OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION 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, March 15, 1999, and THURSDAY, March 18, 1999, on General Plan Amendment P99-0054 of a proposed amendment to the Circulation 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 P99-0054 of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P99-0054 Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying Inc. has applied to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of a change to relocate a portion of the Norris Road alignment as a collector segment located generally south of Snow Road between Carloway Drive and the Friant-Kern Canal; and WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration with mitigation was prepared; 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.54-99 on March 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended denial of above described General Plan Amendment P99-0054 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 General Plan Amendment P99-0054 of the proposed amendment to the Circulation 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 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 advertised and posted on February 11, 1999, in accordance with CEQA. The public necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice do not justify the amendment to the Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan by relocating a portion of the Norris Road alignment as a collector segment between Calloway Drive and the Friant-Kern Canal, south of Snow Road. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element, based on Traffic Analysis, has been shown not to function adequately under the 2020 conditions, therefore, is not consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element is not compatible with existing development adjacent to the site. 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 Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment P99-0054 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, approved and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.. The City Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment P99-0054 of the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes to relocate a portion of the Norris Road alignment as a collector segment as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located south of Snow Road between Calloway Drive and the Friant-Kern Canal. 5. That General Plan Amendment P99-0054, denied herein. ......... 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 /~PR 2 8 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER C SON, DEMOND, MACCARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio ~erk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED APR 2 8 ~999 BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CARL HERNANDEZ Assistant City Attorney MO:pas : S:\G PA-MAR\0054\C I R-cc- R E S. wpd April 15, 1999 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P99-0054 CIRCULATION ELEMENT I REINA ROAD ~t ~m eSm ~ II'°l"llll'°em~'*mmo,lll ~ ,,I,~tlll,ommm,,ll°,1 _ _ zl I °1 o- I 3i I °' I >- I , I NORRIS ROAD 0 1OOO ~.,ALE IN FEET 29904 Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page14 8.9a) 8.9b) 8.9c) you to turn this buildi~ a little like this, or do this, because we're concerned about traffic, or we're ~ncerned about the view of the Kern River Parkway. deed restriction ma' Cal State's problem, but it doesn't address the concerns that the citizen~ have and the view. The Mr. Grady stated that if th~ esire is to have a PCD then their motion tonight would not be to zone this pro it would be to deny the zone change, because the PCD is the site plan Is the conditions of approval. The zone change would occur at the time as they ready to develop the property. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if CC&R's go with the transfer of property, to which staff responded in the affirm~ A motion was made by Commissioner Tavorn, to adopt the resolution denying proposed negative declaration and den' Motion is carried directing the property call vote: seconded by Commissioner of approval of the approval to propose zone change. back as a PCD by the following roll AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Brady, Ortiz, Spra! e Motion is carried, directing the property to come back'~ a PCD. Commissioner Tavorn made a motion to move agenda items 8.9(a), 8.9(b) and 8.9(c) to the next agenda item. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. General Plan Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Combined with 8.9b and 8.9c below Circulation Element Amendment P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Combined with 8.9a and 8.9c below. Zone Change P99-0054 - Porter-Robertson Engineering Staff report given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. John Etcheverry stated he lives to the northerly part of this intersection, and opposes the road change only, and has no concerns about the church or the density. He opposes the road change due to dangerous conditions for egress Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page and ingress. The Traffic Department has said this is not a proper thing to do, is not in the 2010 Plan, and most of the collector and arterial streets follow the section lines, and they see no reason to change this at all, and would see adverse effects to the property in the future if it were changed. Harold Robertson, with Porter-Robertson Engineering, representing the applicant stated that the reason for the proposal of alignment of Norris Road is that regarding future development of the northeast quarter of the section because of the Friant-Kern Canal and the existing alignment of the Norris Road as it bends to the north and ties in at the quarter section corner it leaves an area between Norris Road and the Friant-Kern Canal that is essentially limited in how you can develop it. Currently there is only 575 feet for residential use, and they feel the realignment would make this area more suitable for development and give them more flexibility. If the realignment is approved they will not have to have any other accesses onto Snow Road for any future development. Bf the realignment is denied and they have to maintain that intersection at the quarter corner of the section, then they will have subdivisions that are developed between Norris Road and Snow Road, which is a half a mile, and it's only good planning that they are going to have to have some sort of access at that point. By moving to the east, they would have a signaled intersection, and would eliminate any other access points from subdivisions at that time. Mr. Carter stated the reason they want a small commercial site is they want to try to create a community hub/gathering placing of identity for this community. It will be a small "mom and pop" type store. They do not want to put gas pumps in or even want alcohol and tobacco there, but would like to create a place where families can walk down and meet their neighbors and in the evening have an ice cream; stop by in the morning and have some coffee, pastry and a newspaper. They want a place where people feel safe sending their children inside the walls of the community. They are working with the Post Office to put the mail boxes there. They figure they will get traffic equal to 1/6 of the what the Valley Plaza will get at this little center, so it will more than support the center and be a big boom for the community in that they don't have to go outside the community to get those small items. They would encourage a high school student to come in from three to five and make home deliveries to shut-ins. They are trying to create a sense of ownership in the community, and a place where people can meet and gather and have a facility where they can sit down and actually talk to each other. Outside the store they would like to provide some seating, and maybe some fountains. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Carter what the proposed square footage of the store would be, to which Mr. Carter responded around 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Sprague expressed concern about the reality of being able to make a profit at this type of a center and inquired if Mr. Carter intended to build and lease it out, to which Mr. Carter responded in the affirmative. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page 16 Commissioner Sprague expressed his opinion of the difficulty of finding a tenant, and does not believe the location of Mr. Carter's concept is good. Mr. Carter responded that he agreed, but explained that by putting the mail in there, they figure that they would have 1/6 of the traffic that you get at the Valley Plaza annually. He believes that some of those people would buy something when they're in there. Commissioner Brady questioned staff if their goal has been to work on putting in a commercial area within a community and make it pedestrian friendly, to which staff responded that this 1.25 acre commercial center in a planned subdivision is just one fragment of an idea, which is unlike other commercial centers. Commissioner Boyle commented that this sounds like the perfect opportunity for a PCD type idea. He stated that he thinks the concept is worth pursuing, but once the zone is approved for General Commercial they lose all control over whether that intent will be carried out. He stated that he will support staff on all of its recommendations. Commissioner Brady agreed with the PCD idea, and stated that he would support staff on this item. Commissioner Boyle questioned staff if any changes in the resolution needed to be made given Mr. Robertson's comments, and given the support of staffs recommendations, to which Staff reported in the negative. Staff can not report to the fees put up by Mr. Robertson. With regard to the request to delete condition three regarding the radii that would be effectively what would happen if the movement/intersection is denied at Snow Road. Staff does not believe there will be any changes for that resolution. Assistant City Attorney Hernandez stated that if the requested General Plan Amendment is denied then the applicant still has to come back for a General Plan Amendment to put a commercial development there. They can't come back with a PCD to the Planning Commission and they could consider that because it would still be inconsistent with the designation of LR that would remain on the property. Mr. Robertson commented on condition number two on Exhibit "A", stating that if you deny the realignment of Norris Road, then the intersection at Snow and Norris is already a part of the traffic mitigation impact fee list; that signal light is already a part of that, and this condition is requiring that Mr. Carter, or the developer, pay for that signal light 100%. Mr. Grady clarified that if you're talking livable communities concept, and you're talking about a commercial of this size, you are not talking PCD, it would be PUD, because what you really want to look at is the relationship between this center, or commercial use and the residential. That is the vehicle for getting to where he wants to get. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page 17 A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the negative declaration approving the requested land use amendment of the 2010 General Plan to change the density requirements for 164.55 acres in the Polo Grounds area and denying the land use amendment to change the land use designation from LR to GC on 1.25 acres and recommending the same to City Council with the changes that in Exhibit "A" that the item regarding the applicant being required to pay for the cost of the signal light in the intersection be deleted, and delete the requirement for a realignment of Norris Road, which is items two and five on one copy of Exhibit "A" and items two and three on a different item. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Bredy, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and denying the circulation element amendment to modify the alignment of Non'is Road and recommending the same to City Council with the same deletions as to the conditions on signalizing Snow Road, and on the realignment of Norris Road. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to adopt resolution making findings improving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 to R-1 CH on 10 acres and denying the change from R-1 to C-1 on 1.25 acres as shown on Exhibit "A" through Exhibit "C" and recommending the same to City Council, with the same deletions as to signalizing Snow Road, and the realignment of Norris Road. AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Ortiz, Sprague, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None [break taken] 8.4) General Plan Amend~.Pg~-O990 - Castle and Cooke. I/~ See ~g.~n~. Consent Ag a