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