HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 148-03 148-03
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 03-0343 OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 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, JUNE
16, 2003 and THURSDAY, JUNE19, 2003 on General Plan Amendment 03-0343 of a proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 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 C~'[ornian, a local newspaper of general circulation;
and
WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment 03-0343 of the proposed amendment to the
Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan is as follows:
and
General Plan Amendment 03-0343
Mclntosh & Associates has proposed an amendment to the Land Use Element
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan changing the land use designation
from R-IA (Resource ntensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on
81.10 acres for that site generally located approximately 1,600 feet south of
State Route-58 between Zephyr Lane (extended), Shirley Lane (extended),
Sterling Road (extended) and Oswell Street (extended);
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.106-03 on June 19, 2003, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment 03-0343 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,
July 30, 2003 on the above described General Plan Amendment 03-0343 of the proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 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:
All required public notices have been given.
!
9R~INAL
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed.
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
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.
A traffic study was required for this project.
The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
Agricultural Policy: Policy No. 14 of the Conservation/Soils and Agricultural
Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires the City of
Bakersfield to evaluate ten (10) factors when considering projects that propose to
convert designated agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, The ten (10) factors
and corresponding findings are as follows:
Soil Quality
Finding - The soil types of the project site (Garces silt loam Panoche clay
loam, saline-alkali) are not designated as prime farm land. This soil is
suited to irrigated salt tolerant crops. It is limited mainly by the saline-
alkali condition of the soil and the very slow permeability. Intensive
management is required to reduce the salinity and to maintain soil
productivity.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
b. Availability of irri(~ation water
Finding - The subject site is not unique for farmland in the area in having
an adequate supply of irrigation water for agricultural production.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
project site and area.
Proximity to non-aqricultural uses
Finding - The project site is located adjacent to an existing 300 acre
residential subdivision. The existing subdivision is adjacent along the east
side of the project site within the unincorporated area.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Proximity to intensive parcelization
Finding - The area adjacent to the north and east of the project site has
been intensively parceled for residential and future industrial development,
respectively.
2
ORK~INAL
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Effect on properties subject to "Williamson Act" land use contracts
Finding - The project site does not contain a Williamson Act contract.
The conversion of the project site to urban development would not
prohibit any adjacent agricultural land or agricultural land in the general
area from growing crops or participating in the Williamson Act program.
The project would not require any property in the general area under an
existing Williamson Act contract to begin the notice of nonrenewal or
cancellation process.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Ability to be provided with urban services (sewer1 water1 roads, etc.)
Finding - The City of Bakersfield has determined that the City will
be able to provide all City services to the project site. The California
Water Service Company has stated that it can provide an adequate supply
of domestic water and water for fire protection to the project site.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Ability to affect the aDolication of a(]ricultural chemicals on nearby
~erties
Finding - In Kern County, farmers are required to obtain site-specific
permits from the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner for the purchase
and use many agricultural chemicals. The Agricultural Commissioner
evaluates the proposed chemical application to determine whether it is
near sensitive areas such as residential areas or schools. State law
requires the Agricultural Commissioner to ensure that chemical
applicators take precautions to protect people and the environment.
Based on this evaluation, the Agricultural Commissioner may deny the
application or require specific use practices to mitigate any potential
hazards. Such practices include method of application, time of day,
consideration of weather conditions, and use of buffer zones. When such
permit conditions are in place, they have the force of regulation and are
strictly enforceable. The Kern County Agricultural Commissioner prohibits
the aerial application of restricted chemicals within a quarter mile of any
residential area or active schools.
The proposal will not affect the application of agricultural chemicals for
property located adjacent on the south side of the project site because
that property is located within a quarter mile of an existing residential
subdivision.
~Rt~tNAL
The properties to the north and west of the project site do not contain
agricultural land. The properties within a quarter mile to the east are not
likely to be affected because they are already located within a quarter mile
of a number of residential homes and other uses that may restrict aerial
application. Based on the requirements of the Kern County Agricultural
Commissioner and the existing land uses surrounding the project site, it is
unlikely the proposal itself would have any affect on the application of
agricultural chemicals on nearby agricultural properties.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Ability to create a precedent-settinq situation that leads to the premature
conversion of prime aaricultural lands
Finding - The project would not create any situation that would lead to
the premature conversion of adjacent or area agricultural land. The
project site is bounded by an existing Arterial on the east, an existing
Collector on the north, single family residential development on the west,
and a designated Collector on the south. Each of these factors provides a
buffer that would prevent the project from prematurely converting
agricultural land.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Demonstrated proiect need
Finding - The proposal is a logical extension for residential and
commercial development in the southeastern portion of the City of
Bakersfield. The project site is adjacent to an existing 300 acre residential
area. The existing city limit line is located adjacent along the north side of
the project site. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan encourages
the orderly outward expansion of new urban development that maintains
continuity of existing development and allows incremental expansion of
infrastructure and public services. The proposal complies with the
General Plan's criteria. The proposal meets the objectives and policies of
the Housing Element by providing different types of housing and locating
the residential development in close proximity to commercial development
that would provide services and jobs. Approximately 20 acres of
undeveloped GC (General Commercial) designated land is located north
of and within 300 feet of the subject site. Existing commercial
development is located along the northeast corner of South Fairfax Road
and State Route-58, and the northwest corner of South Fair[ax Road and
Road, both sites are a distance of approximately one-half mile from the
subject site. Commercial sites are also located along East Brundage
Lane located approximately 3/4's of a mile north of the subject site.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
j. Necessity of buffers such as lower densities, setbacks, etc
Finding - The project site is bounded by a Circulation Element designated
Arterial (South Oswell Street) on the west, Circulation Element
designated Collectors on the north (Zephyr Lane) and east (South Sterling
Street) and single family residential development on the east. The City of
Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.150 requires a special
dwelling setback of 50 feet for any dwelling in a residential zone which
adjoins an agriculture zone. These factors will serve as buffers for
adjacent agricultural land.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan.
9. Mitigation measures/conditions are included to lessen impacts of the project.
10.
The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices justify the
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan.
11.
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 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 Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 03-0343 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 03-0343
of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 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 approximately 1,600 feet south of State Route-58 between
Zephyr Lane (extended), Shirley Lane (extended), Sterling Road (extended) and
Oswald Street (extended) subject to conditions of approval and mitigati0~,q,.
measures in Exhibit "1". :? '~ '~
That General Plan Amendment 03-0343, approved herein, be combined with
other approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land
Use E~ement Amendment.
......... 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
"' '~O ~nn'~ by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMI::MBER
COUNCILMEMBER ~N J~,~
PAMELA A. McCART~Y~ CMO
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED//~L 3 0 ?003
H/~RVEY L. HALL
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
S:\Dole\03-0343\CC GPAR.DOC
EXHIBIT "1"
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-0343
Planninq
1. This project site consisting acres shall be limited to 360 single-family dwelling
units.
Given the known proximity of known cultural resources, we (Southern San
Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSUB) recommended that a qualified
archaeologist conduct a field survey of the entire 81.10 acre site in order to
determine if cultural resources exist prior to tract recordation.
If cultural resources are unearthed during ground disturbance activities, all work
shall halt in the area of the find. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be
called in to evaluate the findings and make the appropriate mitigation
recommendations.
The existing well located on the subject site shall be accurately plotted on all
future maps related to GPA/ZC 03-0343. The abandonment of any well shall
comply with the remedial abandonment procedures of the Department of
Conservation, Division Of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.
Public
Works
With submittal of a land division or Lot Line Adjustment application, provide
dedication of Oswell Street, South Sterling Road and Zephyr Lane to artedal and
collector standards, including expanded intersections.
Submit a comprehensive drainage study to be submitted to and approved by the
City Engineer. Site any drainage retention facility on the periphery of the GPA
area to facilitate future expansion or consolidation of drainage facilities as
adjacent area develops. The study shall be approved and any required retention
site and necessary easements dedicated to the City. Provide an easement for
the ultimate retention basin site, along with necessary easements for the
transportation of drainage water to the site.
Submit verification to the City Engineer of the existing sewer systems capability
to accept the additional flows to be generated through development under the
new land use and zoning.
Payment of median fees for the frontage of the property within the GPA request.
These fees may be paid prior to recordation of any map or approval of
improvement plans.
Access to the arterial and collector streets will be limited and determined at time
of division or development. Determination of whether a right turn lane is required
at the access street(s) will also be made at the time of division or development.
A full access opening will only be considered if the developer funds and installs a
traffic signal at the site entrance. Said signal will only be permitted ifa signal
synchronization study is submitted and approved, which shows progression is
not adversely affected. . × ~4/¢.
The entire area covered by th~s General Plan Amendment shall be include~n ; ,,~
the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees fo~
inclusion in the Consolidate Maintenance District with submittal of any ~r~,AL
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval
GPA/ZC 03-O343
Page 2
development plan, tentative subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application for
a lot line adjustment for any portion of this GPA area.
Local Mitigation
Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures as indicated in
Table 6 of the traffic study:
Fair[ax Rd/Niles St - add south bound left turn lane, 1.20% share
Fair[ax Rd/Pioneer Dr - add north and south bound through lanes, convert
north and south bound right turn lanes to combination through-right turn
lanes, 1.85% sham
Brundage Ln/Oswell St- add north bound right turn lane, 6.12%
Brundage Ln/Morning Dr - add east and north bound right turn lanes, add
west bound left turn lane, 1.48% share
Brundage Ln/Cottonwood Rd/SR 58 WB Ramps - install signal, add east
bound left turn lane, 2.87% share
Mt Vernon Ave/SR 58 EB Ramps - add east bound left turn lane, 2.91%
share
Oswell St/SR 58 EB Ramps - install signal, add south bound left, 17.44%
sham; add north bound through, 100% (adding project triggers this need)
Weedpatch Hwy/SR 58 EB Ramps - install signal, 1.59% sham
Oswell St/Zephyr Ln -install signal, 24.31%
8. Reg onal Transportation Impact Fee
The study provided an analysis of the project share of the impact fee at $133,783
for the 360 single-family units ($336.75 per DU). Pay the computed fee
$366.75 per DU.
S:~Dole\03~ 343t Mitigation 1 .doc
EXHIBIT '1'
GPA/ZC 03-0343
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES
6.1 Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment Exhaust
The following mitigation measures should be utilized during the construction phase of the project to
reduce construction exhaust emissions. These mitigation measures are stated in the GAMAQI
guidance document as approved mitigation for construction equipment:
· Properly and routinely maintain all construction equipment, as recommended by
manufacturer manuals, to control exhaust emissions.
· Shut down equipment when not in use for extended periods of time to reduce emissions
associated with idling engines.
· Encourage fide sharing and use of transit transportation for construction employee
commuting to the project sites.
· Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of fossil fuel-fired
equipment.
· Curtail construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations; this may
include ceasing o f construction activity during the peak-hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent
roadways.
6.2 Mitigation Measures for Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction of the project requires the implementation of control measures set forth under
Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM~0 Prohibitions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
The following mitigation measures, in addition to those required under Regulation VIII, can reduce
fugitive dust emissions associated with these projects:
· All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for
construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical
stabilizer/anppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover, or vegetative ground
Cover.
· All onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of
dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
· All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and
demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing
application of water or by presoaking.
· When materials are transported offsite, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to
limit visible dust emissions, and at least six roches of freeboard space from the top of the
container shall be maintained.
· All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from
adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is
expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the
visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden)
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES t-ont.)
· Following thc addition of materials to, or the removat of materials from, the surface of
outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions
utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
· Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet
from the site and at the end of each workday.
· Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.
· Asphalt-concrete paving shall comply with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Rule 4641 and restrict the use of cutback, slow-cure and emulsified asphalt paving materials.
· Cease grading activities during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour
period).
· Limit construction-related vehicle speeds to 15 mph on all unpaved areas at the constructions
site.
· Wash offconstruction and haul trucks to minimize the removal of mud and dirt from the
project sites.
6.3 Mitigation Measures for Mobile Source Emissions
Transportation control measures and design features can be incorporated into the project to reduce
emissions from mobile sources. The below-listed control measure provides a strategy to reduce
vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle mi les traveled, vehicle idling and traffic congestion for the purpose
of reducing motor vehicle emissions. These features were incorporated into the emission estimates
for the project and are therefore required in order to achieve the emission level presented above:
· Incorporate sidewalks throughout the project, with adequate safety signage and appropriate
lighting. Com~ect sidewalks to any open space or recreational areas and to nearby transit
loading areas and/or shelters
· Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including street trees to shade the walkways and/or
Bikeways, and adequate bicycle parking.
· Select deciduous trees and locate them on southem and/or western exposures to shade
structures in summer and allow sun in winter.
· Install electrical outlets and/or natural gas lines in backyard or patio areas to encourage
electric landscaping equipment use and natural gas barbecues.
· Improve streets and traffic signals for intersections and street segments, which may impact
the surrounding local roadway system due to traffic, generated by the proposed
developments. Specific mitigation measures for improving the level of service on congested
roadways are presented in the Dmited Traffic Study prepared by Pinnacle Engineering.
400400020 Air Quality Assessmem
19
~PJGINAL
G PNZC 03-0343
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont.)
6.4 Additional Mitigation Measures
Prior to recordation of approximately 50% of future tract map buildout, the subdivider shall
implement one or a combination of the following measures and/or programs to result in a
reduction of ROG emissions of at least 0.90 tons per year:
Prior to recordation of approximately 50% of future tract map buildout, the subdivider
shall fully construct a project or projects approved by the City Public Works Department
that will result in the reduction of emissions as described above. The improvements for
said project must be accepted by the Public Works Department at recordation of
approximately 50% of the lots. The project selected shall be a project that is not
otherwise funded or constructed with the future tract map. The subdivider is responsible
for all costs to determine the emission reductions associated with the proposed Public
Works projects. This documentation shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to
recordation of approximately 50% of the lots. The projects used for the reduction in
emissions can include one or more of the following types of projects:
Construction of a new, warranted signal.
Modification of an existing signalized intersection to add additional left turn
storage or dedicated right turn capability.
Mitigation programs such as, but not limited to the following, may also be considered by
the subdivider to achieve the same reduction in emissions as described above.
Car crushing of older model cars.
Modification to stationary diesel engines, such as those under agricultural use.
Modification of fleet vehicles and/or other mobile source.
If one or more of these programs is selected by the subdivider, proof of compliance with these
measures must be provided fo the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to recordation of
approximately 50% of the lots within the future tract map. Proof of compliance may include
documentation of the number, type and year of cars crushed; location and type of engine
modified, photo documentation and qualification of emission reduction by the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District or an air quality consultant.
The applicant/developer shall do either the mitigation shown above under item number "6.4
Additional Mitigation Measures", or
In the event the City adopts an Indirect Source Rule fee or other similar fee to reduce air quality
impacts prior to recordation of subdivisions for the residential area or issuance of building
permits for the commercial area of this project site, this project shall be subject to the fees in
effect at the time (Source: City Of Bakersfield).
S:\Dole\O3-O343~air quality mit (cont.).doc
400400020 Air Quality Assessment 20
II. Summary of Impacts
Table 1: Executive Summary of Impacts
All:llvsis Scenario/Traffic Facility
Existing
Signalization
No signalization required
Intersection Improvements
No intersection improvements required
Segment Improvements
Fairfax Rd - South of Brundage Lane
EXHIBIT "1"
GPA/ZC 03-0343
TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
Iml)rovemcnt/Mitigation Measure
Level of Significance After
Improvement/Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Improve to 4-1ant, und[x ided
N/A
N/A
Improvements reqd without Project
Year 2020 without Proiect
Signalization
Brundage Ln (@Cottonwood) & SR55 WB Ramps
Mt Vernon Ave & SR58 WB Ramps
Oswell St & SR58 WB Ramps
Oswell St & SR58 EB Ramps
Fairfax Rd & SR58 WB Ramps
Fairfax Rd & SR58 EB Ramps
Install Signal
Install Signal
Install Signal
install Signai
Install Sigmd
Install Signa[
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements rcqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Page 2
Analysis Scenario/Traffic Facility hnl)rOVC[nent/Mitigation Measure
Year 2020 without Proiect (cont'd)
Signalization (cont'd)
Weedpatch Hwy & SR58 EB Ramps
Intersection hnprovements
Fairfax Rd & Niles St
Fairfax Rd & Pioneer Dr
Bmndage Ln & Oswell St
Bnmdage La & ?airfax Rd
Brundage Ln & Morning Dr
Bmndage Ln (~Cottonwood) & SR58 WB Ramps
Mt Vernon Ave & SR58 WB Ramps
Mt Vernon Ave & SR58 EB Ramps
Oswe]l St & SR58 WB Ramps
Oswell St & SR58 EB Ramps
Segment Improvements
Brundage Ln - Cottonwood Rd to Fairt'ax Rd
Brundage Ln - Fairfax Rd to Morning Dr
Install Signal
Add SL
Add NT & ST (Modil},' NR to NTR / SR to STR)
Add NR
Add ST
Add ER, WL, NR ~
Add EL '
Add NL ~
Add EL ~
Add SR
Add EL
Improve to 4-lane, di'~idcd
hnprove to 4-lane, undivided
Level of Significance After
Improvement/Mitigation
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
improvements reqd __
Improvements reqd __
without Project
without Project
without ProJect
without ProJect
without Project
without Project
without Project
without Project
wiflmut Project
without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
~o~i~O°
Page 3
Analysis Scenario/Traffic Facility lmprovement/Mitigatioa Measure
Year 2020 with Proiect
Signalization
No additional signalization required
Intersection IiilprovemelltS
Oswell St & SR58 EB Ramps
Segment Improvements
No additional segment improvements required
Level of Significance After
Improvement/Mitigation
N/A N/A
Add NT Not significant
N/A N/A
1, Improvements indicated as required for these f~cilities are as determined in the Traffic Impact Study previously prepared for the adjacent
project located east of Oswell Street and south of State Route 58. Analysis of these facilitiea ia not required by this study since this project's
estimated traffic volumes are less than the :'ninimmn threshold volumes at these facilities. However, in order to account for cumulative impacts
at these facilities, the required improvements have been noted in this study along with calculations for the proportionate costs of the required
m~provements applicable to this project.
Page 4
T~AFFIC MI'I'IGA~ION [cont.~
GPA/ZC Oswell S Jet & Zephyr Lane Traffic Itr 'act Study
VII. Mitigation (cont'd)
Mitigation
In order to mitigate the 2020 Future traffic volumes plus Project generated traffic impacts to intersections
and segments, the improvements summarized below are needed to the roadway network in order lo maintain
acceptable Levels of Service. It is assumed that the improvements needed to the roadway facilities for
Existing and 2020 Future traffic will be in place prior to the addition of the project generaled Iraffic. See
Table I - "Summary of Impacts" for improvements required for existing and f~ture projected traffic volumes
without the addition of project traffic.
Signalization
As a general note, intersection signalization should incorporate signal interconnect conduit in order
to provide coordination along the arterial roadways and to facilitate the use of TSM measures
during peak periods. If signalization is required by the addition of Project traffic, a.mitigation
measure is noted in Table 1. However, no signalization is required due to the addition of project
generated traffic. It should be noted here that the intersection of the proposed future alignment of
Zephyr Lane (indicated on the "Proposed Land Use Designation" Figure 5, and the "Proposed
Zoning" Figure 6), with existing Oswell Street, has not been specifically analyzed in this study.
Fulure volumes along Oswell Street are difficult to predict and are not adequately reflected in the
model data. ltowever, signalization of this intersection will most likely be required as future
development of the proposed project occurs. Signalization should occur in the future as signal
warrants are satisfied and service levels degrade. It is difficult at this time to accurately calculate
the project's pro rata share of the cost of signalization of this public street intersection. However an
approximate calculalion of the appropriate fee is included in Table 6, using the minimum threshold
volume required for signalization as delailed on Table 6
Intersection Improvements
The specific mitigation measures recommended for individual intersections are detailed on Table 6,
"Intersection ImprovementAvlitigation". Intersection improvements required for Year 2020 Future
Traffic Volumes are noted in Table I - "Summary of Impacts". If intersection improvements are
required by the addition of Project generated traffic, a mitigation measure is noted on Table 1. The
following intersections require improvements due to the addition of project generated traffic.
Oswcll Street & SR 58 EB Ramps
Segment Improvements
Table 9 "Roadway Segment Laneage" reflects the laneage recommended for Existing, Year 2020
Future Traffic and Year 2020 Future traffic plus Project Traffic in order to achieve LOS "C" as
determined by a Volume to Capacity ratio of less than 0.80. If additional lanes are required for
existing or 2020 Future Traffic, improvements are noted in Table I - "Summary of Impacts". If
additional lanes are required by the addition of the project traffic, a mitigation measure is noted in
Table 1. However. no roadway segments require improvement due to the addition of project
generated traffic
TKA~'FIC MITIGA'IION (cont.)
GPA/ZC Oswell Stre & Zephyr Lane-Traffic Imp Study
VIII. Findings
Project's share of Mitigation
The project's proportionale share of traffic mil~gatmn for intersections har been determined as the ratio of thc
project's added peak hour traffic to the total projecled traffic volume during the year 2020. Table 6 indicates
the pro-tala share of necessary improvements and mitigalmn.
Conclusions
If the projecled growth within the study area is realized, most of the improvements identified in Table 1
"Summary of Impacts" will be necessary even without the addition of project generated traffic. As identified
in this study, only minor mitigation measures will be required due to the addition of project generated traffic
for intersections other than those within the immediate vicinity of the project. The project should contribute
its proportionate share, as identified in Table 6 -"Pro-Rata/Mitigation", of the costs to construct necessary
improvements required due to future traffic growth projections in the study area. Projections of futm:e traffic
growth, though determined with best available data, should be verified by actual counts during future years
prior to actual construction oftbe required improvements identified in this study.
Contribution to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program to fund the regional
roadway improvements shall be made as identified herein and shall be offset by those improvements which
are wholly funded by the developer but which benefit surrounding properties. Construction of facilities
within Ihe Transporlafion Impact Fcc Program should be in accordance with the Capital Improvement Plan
for the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan Area (<ily of Bakersfield Resolution 142-96)
OFIIGINAL
TRAFFIC MITIGATION {cont.)
Table 6: Intersection ImprovemenL~/Ml~lgatJo~l/Pro-Rata Share. Advantage Homes GpA/Z(. ~ Oswell St & Zephyr
Intersection/Mitigation ~ Exist Residential Year 2020 Cost of Resid.
Project Traffic Future Impn~m't I Pro)ecrs
~ Year 2020 Traffic + Mitig. Share of
Project knp/Mitig
PHV PiN % 2 PHV (6)
f Oswell Street & Colleqe Avenue
2020: No improvemenls required for Future 2020 traffic increases 21 f 6 48 2.17% 2209 $0 SC)
2020 + proj: No mitigation required due to addition of prolecl fraffic
2 :airfax Road & ColleRe Avenue
Nut analyzed beyond e~sting since project added peak hour trafhc is 1853 24 1 01% 2371 $0 $0
less than 40 (Exist LOS "C") No mitigation reqd by adjacent project
3 Oswel[ Street & Niles Street
20'20: No improvements required fcr Future 2020 baltic increases 2936 77 2.40% 3207
2020 + Pro~: No mitigatio~ required due to addifio~ of project traffic
4 :airfax Road & Niles Sb-ee(
2020: Add SL to rnaintain existing LOS "D" 2999 44 1.20% 3681 $80.000
2020 * pr~: No additional nitigamion required due to additi~ of proiec~ baltic
5 Vlorning Drive & Niles St]-eof
No( analyzed beyo~l existing since project added 1241 32 1.66% 1929 $0 $0
peak hour traffic )s less than 40 (Existing LOS "C')
6 ~alifomia Avenue & Lakev~ewAve/Haley St
Not ahab/zed beyond existing since project added 1398 19 1 00% 1897 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
7 'vlt Vernon Avenue & California Avenue
2020: No improvemel~ts required to maintain existing LOS I ' 424~ 18 042% 4333 $0 $0
2020 + ProJ: No mifigalion required due to addition of project tralfic
8 Fairfax Road & Pionee~ Drive
2020: Add NT & ST (Modifl/NR to NTR / 8R to STR) 15~8 45 185% 2430 $10,000 $185
2020 * Proj: No addifiona~ miti~lation required due to addition of project traffic
9 Mo~ninq Drive & Pioneer Drive
Nut analyzed beyond existing since proiec( added 1122 24 1.31% 1838 $0 $O
peak ~ traffic is less than 40 (E.~ LOS
10 Mt Verno~ Avenue & Vkginia Avemm
11 Oswell Street &V'~gin~aAvenue;
F_~dsting: Signal Wao-a~s Satisfmd: 1.2. & 11
2020: No intpc0vements requited lo maintain existing LOS 'F" 170g f 25 4.83% 2588 $0 $0
2020 + Pro~: No mitigation required due lo addition of project traffic
12 Morninq Drive & 8reckenddqe Road;
Existing: SignalWanrauts Satisfied: 1.8. & 11
No~ analyzed beyond existing since project added 1134 15 0 74% 2028 $0 $0
peak hour traffK; is less than 30 (Existing LOS "D')
13 Morninq Drive & Edison Hwy
N(X anayzed beyo~cl exJsfi~(j since project added 1403 16 0.64% 2514 $0 $0
peak ho~ traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS
14 Brundage Larle & Cotto~vood Rd/l_akeview Ave
Not anayzed beyood existing sirlce project added peak hour trat8c is 1595 33 1.51% 2180 $0 $0
less than 40 (Exist LOS 'C'); No mitigstle~ reqd. by adjacent project
TRAFFIC MITIGATION (cont.)
Table ~: lntersectlon lmprovemem. .dtJgation/Pr~Rata Share . Advantage Homes OPA/'~. ~ Oswell St & Zephyr Ln
Intersectlon/M~lgaflon ~ Exist Residential Year 202C Cost of Restd.
I~oject Traffic Future Imprvm~ ~ ProJ~t's
Proj~t Im~Mitig
15 B~ndaqe Lane & Was~t~ S~eet
~ak hour traf~ is ~ss than ~ (E~sti~ LOS
~sti~: Signal Wa~nls Satisfi~: NONE
16 B~nda~e Lane & Mt Vemon Avenue
17 B~nd~e Lane & Quan~o Avenue 4
less than ~ (~ LOS "B") No m~iga~ r~d. by adja~nt proj~t
~ti~: S~I Wa~nts SatisfY: NONE
~ + Proj: No m~at~n r~uir~ d~ 1o ~it~ of proj~ traffic
19 9m~a~e Lane & Stedin~ Road ~
less than ~ (Exist LOS "B") No mitigat~n reqd. by adjacent project
E~isting: Signal Warrants Safis~: NONE
20 BrundaRe Lane & Faifl~ Road
2020: Add ST 19~ 1 57 1 59% 3587 $~,~ $636
2020 + Proj: No m~hgation required due to addition of project traffic
21 B~ndaRe Lane & Morninq Drive ~
Not ana~ed beyond e~ist~ng since prat added peak hour traffic is
less than ~ (~ist LOS "C") No mitiga~ r~d by adjacent project
~oJ~t s' ~fflc, as ~enlifi~ in stu~ fm~ ~t).
~ B~e ~ne (~Co~) & SR~WB Ra~ - PM Peak
N~ ~ ~ ~fi~ ~ ~ ~k ~ff~ ~
~(~ LOS'~.~~~.
~ak ~ traffic is less than ~ (E~sti~ LOS "C")
24 Coffon~ Road & SR~ EB Ramps - PM Peak ~
25 Coff~ R~d & SR~ EB Ramps -~ Peak ~
~ak ~ tmf¢~ is ~s than ~ (E~st~ LOS
TR~.FFIC MITIGATION (.cont.)
Table 6: InCersec~lon Improvements~. .~gaf/on/Pro-Rala Share. Advantage Homes OpA/Z . Oswall St & Zephyr Ln
Intersecllon/Mitlgation ~ Exist Residential Ye~ir 2020 Cost ol Restd.
Project Traffic Future Imprvm~ll Project's
~ Year 2020 Tralfi¢ + Mitig. Share of
Project ImplMitig
PHV PHV % ~ PHV (6)
~ Mt Vernon Avenue & SR58WB Ramps - PM Pea_k z
Existing: Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1.2, & 11
No( analyzed beyond existing since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (Exist LOS 'C"} No mitigafon reqd by adjacent project. 21S6 31 0 80% 3869 $0 $0
2020: Provide Signal I Add NL (Required w~thout the addition of
projects' traffic, as identified in study fo( adjacent project)
27 Mt Vemo~ Avenue & SRS~ WB Ramps - AM Peak 7
No~ ahab/zed beyond ex]sting since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 30 (Ex,st LOS 'D'). No mitigation reqd. by adjacent project
2020: Pro,de Signal (Required without the additio~ of 2137 27 065% 4178 $0 $0
projects' traffic, as identified in study for adjacent p¢oject).
28 Mt Vernon Argue & SR58 EB Ramps ~ PM Peak 1
No( analyzed beyond existing since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (Exist LOS 'C") No mitigation reqd. by adjacent project
2020: Add EL (Required without the addition of 1432 30 2.91% 2464 $40,000 $1.163
projects' traffic, as identified in study for adiacent project)
29 Mt Vernon Avenue & SR58 EB Ramps - AM Peak ]
Not anah/zed beyond existing since project added 2005 ~ 5 094% 3608 $0 $0
peak hour traffc is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
30 Oswell Street & SR58 WB Ramps PM Peak ?
2020: Provide Signal / Add SR 1275 288 6 48% ~A5 $0 $0
Signal Wan-ants Satisfied 1, 2, & 11
2020 + Proj: No additional mdigation required due to addition of project traffic
31 Oswell Street & SR58WB Ramps - AM Peak 7
20DO:ProvideSignal/AddSR 1138 226 ! 637% 3548 $0 $0
2020 + Pro~: No additional mitigation required due to addition of project tratfc
32 Osw~ Street & $R58 EB Ramps - PM Peak ?
2020: Provide Signal / Add EL 777 389 17.44% 2231 $0 $0
Slgoal Warrants Safisf~l: 1.2& 11
2020.+ pm~: Add NT~ 26.75% $5,000 $1,358
33 O~ S'~et & SR58 EB Ram4~ - AM Peak4'~
2020: provide Signal 558 288 18.00% 1521 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No addiUo~al mitigation required due to addition of Ixoject traffic
34 Fain'ax Road & SR58 WB Ramps - PM Peak ~
Existing: SignalWa~rants Satisfied: NONE
No~ analyzed beyond exis6ng since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (E)dst LOS "C~) No mitigation ~eqd by adjacent project
2020; Provide Signal (Required without the addition of t 386 35 1.73% 2027 $0 $0
projects' traffic, as identified in study for adjacent project)
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2 & 11
35 Fair'Pax Road & SR58 WB Ramps - AM Peak ~
No( analyzed beyond existing since project added 1475 24 1.13% 2124 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
March 2003
Table 6: Intersection Improvem~ M~ga#on/Pro-Rata Share. Advantage Homes GP, (~ Oswell St & Zephy~ Ln
Intersection/Mitigation ~ Exist Residential Year 2o20 Cost of Resid.
Project Traffic FUture Impr,~n't I Project's
~Year 2020 Tra~c* MItig. Share of
Project Imp/Mitlg
PHV PHV % 2 PHV ($)
36 Fairfax Road & $R58 EB Ramps - PM Peak 7
Fxisfing: Signal Warrants Safisf~t 1,8, & 11
2020: Provide Signar ~o maintain existing LOS "F" 1442 29 1 3~% 2103 $0 $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1,2 & 11
2020 + Proj: No additional mitigMion required due 1o addition of project traffic
37 Fairfax Road & SRS~ EB Ramps~AM Peak 7
2020: No improvements required to maintain existing LOS "F" 1217 27 1.54% 1757 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation requited due to addition of project traffic
38 Weedpatch Hwy & SRS8 WB Ramps - PM Peak ~
Not anal, zed beyond existing since project added 1405 23 2 17% 2464 $0 $0
peak ho~r tra f/"m is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
39 Weedl:~tc~ Hwy & SR58 WB Ramps - AM Peak ~
No~ analyzed beyo,nd e~ting s~ce ~ojec~ added 1375 t 3 1.27% 2395 $0 $O
peak hour traffic is ~ess than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
401 ~Needpatch Hwy & SR.58 EB Ramps - PM Peak t
Existing: Signal Warrants Safis~'md: 1,8, & 11
Not analyzed beyond exJsfing s~ce project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (Exist LOS "C") No mitigation reqd by adjacent project
2020: Provide Signal (Required without the addition of 1760 20 1 59% 3017 $120.000 $1.909
projects* traffic, as identified in study for adjacent project)
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1,2 & 11
41 _Weedpatch Hwy & SR58 EB Ramps - AM Peak ~
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 1306 t 8 1 94% 2232 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less Ihan 50 (Exisfing LOS
42 Oswell St & Zephyr Ln (Future Intersection)4
Not specifically analyzed due fo inedequafe future volume data N/A 3~9 24.31% 1600 $120,000 $29,175
Nst-~mabzed beyond ~ d,~:e Ix~j~ct ~id,-'~d n47 20 1.25% 967
p~ak hour' traffm Is less I~an 30 (E~ls~ LOS -D")
44 Fai~'ax Road & Redbank Ro~d
45 Weedpatch Hwy & Redbank Road ~
~014ts01 xls:Pro-Rata Share-Mdig
Page
,'~RfRIN~i
TRAFFIC MITIGATION (cont.)
Tabla 6: Intersection Improveme~ fltJgatlon/Pro-Rata Share - Advantage Homes GPA, ~ Oswell b~t & Zephyr Ln
Intecsectlon/Mitigation ] Exist Residential ~ear 202C Cost of Resid.
ProjectTrafflc Future Impr~m'ti Project's
~ Year 2020 Traffic + Mitig. Share of
Project Imp/Mitig
pH1/ pHV % ~ PHV ($)
47 _V'Veedpatch Hwy & Muller Road 4.7
Existing: Signal Warranls Satisfied: None
Not anah/zed beyond existing since project added 817 14 0.88% 1505 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C*)
PHV = Peak Hour Volume
Percentage Based on Cai Trans Formula: Project Volume~(Future Volume Existing Volume) This value is
disproportionately large compared Io the value calculated by the standard method It unfaidy places a large
responsibility upon the developer to mrtigate the existing conditions of an intersection, which is in direct
conflict wffh the requirement for the developer to m~igate an intersechon to a minimum of its existing
operational Level of Service.
Project percentage of future traffic is show~ in this column regardless of mitigation requirements
Additional lanes required as show~ are wi~ reference to existing lanes at time of study survey. Since laneage
ccnfkjurations may have changed since time of survey, intersection analysis printouts co~tained in the appendix
should be referred to for actual total laneage configurations required fa mt[igation.
Percentage share at this intersection is based on the project's cont dbution to the minimum threshold tor
signafization at this intersection (1280v~ for 1 lane by I lane Approaches. 1440vph for 2 lane by I lane
Approaches. and 160Ovph tot 2 lane by 2 lane Approaches)
Project created intersection. Developer shall be responsible for all improvement costs related to this inlersection
Costs for improvements are based on following estimates for specific improvements:
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (undeveloped area): $40,000
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (developed area): $80,000
Add right turn lane, paved St 0,000
Add any lane, striping change only $5,000
Construct Traffic Signal $120,000
Improvements to this intersection are incleded in the Phase II Metropolitan Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Fee
Program and therefore paid for by project's contribution to that tee program
Project's Pro-Rata Share Cost Summary
Total Cost of Improvements(Not paid for with RTIF) $725,000
Residential
Projects Pro-Rata Sham(Non RTIF) $43,204
Phase II - Transportation Impact Fee (See Table 10A&10B) $133,783
Total Traffic Impact Fees $176,986
Per Dwelling Unit Cost (400 D.U.'s)
$442.47
30t4~sOt xls Pro-Rat~ Shere-Mitig
U
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-0343
STATE HIGHWAY 58 :
ER
R-IA TO LR
R-LA
P
IER HMR
L
EXHIBIT 2