HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 4140 4140
ORDINANCE NO. __
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDING SECTION 17.06.020 (ZONE MAP NO. 124-02) OF
TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM FROM A (AGRICULTURE)
TOR-1/PUD (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING/PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT) ON 81.10 ACRES 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). (FILE # 03-0343)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on a petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
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, by Resolution No. 107-03 on June 19, 2003, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code
to approve Zone Change 03-0343 as delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 124-02 marked
Exhibit "2", by this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by
the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make several
general and specific findings of fact which warranted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from A to R-l/PUD on
81.10 acres and the Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and correct;
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 city staff, Planning Commission and this Council; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on May 16,
2003, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows residential, commercial,
public services and agricultural development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
All required public notices have been given.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed.
Mitigation Measures/Conditions shown on Exhibit No. "1" are included in the
project to ameliorate impacts.
4. 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:
a. 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.
Availability of irriqation 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.
c. Proximity to non-aoricultural 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 oarcelization
Finding - The area adjacent to the north and east of the project site has
been intensively parceled for residential and future industrial
development, respectively.
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
e. Effect on properties subiect 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.
2
The conversion of the project site to urbanization is appropriate for the
area.
Ability to be provided with urban services (sewer, water, 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 application of aqricultural 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.
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.
3
oRiGiNAL
Ability to create a orecedent-settin(3 situation that leads to the oremature
conversion of prime a(~ricultural 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
Fairfax 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.
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.
A traffic study was required for this project.
The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan.
The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices justify the
amendment to Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code and Zoning Map No. 101-
13.
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,
follows:
1.
2.
3.
SECTION 1.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use zoning of that
certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property is shown on
Zoning Map. No. 124-02 marked Exhibit "2" attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and are more specifically described in attached Exhibit "3 ".
Such zone change is hereby made subject to the conditions of
approval/mitigation measures listed in attached Exhibit "1 ", subject to approval of
GPA 03-0343.
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and
shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
5
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and
adopted~,~l~ the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
~. ? Z003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MACC.,%~,::), HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNC[LMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER /'¥t I~-.~'~,"fcl PJ~
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CM~J
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio ClErk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AUG 27 2003
HARVEY L HALL
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form
BART J. THILTG~N
City Attorney/,, '/
Attachments: Exhibit 1-Mitigation Measures
Exhibit 2-Zone Map
Exhibit 3-Legal Description
S:\dole\03-0343\cc ozc.doc
EXHIBIT "1"
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval
General Plan AmendmentJZone Change 03-0343
Planning
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 arterial 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 if a signal
synchronization study is submitted and approved, which shows progression is
not adversely affected.
The entire area'covered by this General Plan Amendment shall be included [fl'~'x~'~.
the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees fQ~r~ ~
inclusion in the Consolidate Maintenance District with submittal of any -.., ~..~
Mitigation Measures/Conditions of Approval
GPA/ZC 03-0343
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:
Fairfax Rd/Niles St - add south bound left turn lane, 1.20% sham
Fair[ax Rd/Pioneer Dr - add north and south bound through lanes, convert
north and south bound right turn lanes to combination through-fight turn
lanes, 1.85% sham
Brundage Ln/Oswell St- add north bound right turn lane, 6.12%
Brundage Ln/Moming Dr - add east and north bound right turn lanes, add
west bound left turn lane, 1.48% share
Brundage LrdCottonwood Rd/SR 58 WB Ramps - install signal, add east
bound left turn lane, 2.87% sham
Mt Vemon Ave/SR 58 EB Ramps - add east bound left turn lane, 2.91%
share
Oswell StJSR 58 EB Ramps - install signal, add south bound left, 17.44%
share; add north bound through, 100% (adding project triggers this need)
Weedpatch Hwy/SR 58 EB Ramps - install signal, 1.59% share
Oswell StJZephyr Ln - install signal, 24.31%
Regional 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.
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 ride 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 of construction activity during the peak-hour o f 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~o 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 parposes, shall bc effectively stabilized ofdnst emissions using water, chemical
stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover, or vegetative ground
cover.
· All onsite unpaved roads and offsite unpaved sceeas wads shall be effectively stabilized of
dust missions 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 inches 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)
~)HIL~INAi
AIR QIJALITY MITIGATION I~SURES /'ont.)
· Following thy addition of materials to, or the removal 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 off construction 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 miles 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 s~gnage and appropriate
lighting. Connect sidewalks lo 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 southern and/or western exposures to shade
stnlcttLres in summer and allow sun in winter.
· Install elec~ical outlets and/or natural gas lines in baekyard or patio areas to encourage
electric landscaping equipment use and natural gas barbecues.
· Improve streets and traffic signals for inte~sectious 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 ofservieeon congested
roadways are presented in the Limited Traffic Study prepared by Pinnacle Engineering.
400400020 Air Quali(y Assessrnenl
19
GPA/ZC 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:
1. 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:
a. Construction of a new, warranted signal.
b. 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.
a. Car crushing of older model cars.
b. Modification to stationary diesel engines, such as those under agricultural use.
c. 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 to 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:'~)ote\03-0343~air quality mit (co~t.).d~c
400400020 Air Quality Assessment
20
Analysis Scenario/Traffic Facility hnprovcment/Mitigatiou Measure
Year 2020 with Proiect
Signalization
'No additional signalization required
Inter~ection Improvements
Oswell St & SR58 EB Ramps
Segment Improvements
No additional segment improvements required
Level of Significance After
lmprovemenl/Mitigation
N/A N/A
Add NT Not significant
N/A N/A
1. Improvements indicated as required for these fScilities are as determined in the Traffic Impact Study previously prepared for the adjacent
project located east of Oswcll Street and south of State Route 5,"; Analysis of these facilities is not required by this study since this project's
estimated traffic volumes are less than the n~inimum threshold volumes at these facilities. However, in order to account for cumulative impacts
al these facilities, the required improvements have been noted in this study along with calculations for the proportionate costs of the required
improvements applicable to this project.
Page 4
II. Summary of Impacts
Table I: Executive Summar~ of Impacts
Anah'sis Scenario/Traffic Facility
Existing
Signalization
No signalization required
Intersection Improvements
No intersection improvements required
Segment Improvements
Fairfax Rd - South of Brundag¢ Lane
EXHIBIT "1"
GPA/ZC 03-0343
TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
lmprovcmcnl/M iligalion Measure
N/A
N/A
Improvc to 4-1anc, uodividcd
Level of Significance After
Improvement/Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Improvements reqd without Project
Year 2020 without Project
Signalization
Bmndage Ln (@Cottonwood) & 5R58 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 Sig~xal
Install Signal
Install Signal
install Signal
Improvements reqd withgut Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Page 2
Analysis Scenario/Traffic Facility
Year 2020 without Project (cont'd)
Signalization (cont'd)
W¢¢dpatch Hwy & SR58 EB Ramps
Intersection hnprovements
Fairfax Rd & Niles St
Fairfax Rd & Pioneer Dr
Bmndage Ln & Oswell St
Brundage Ln & Fairfax Rd
Brundage Ln & Morning Dr
Brondage Ln (~Cottonwood) & SR58 WB Ramps
Mt Vernon Ave & SR58 WB Ramps
Mt Vernon Ave & SR58 EB Ramps
Oswell St & SR58 WB Ramps
Oswell St & SR58 EB Ramps
Segment Improvements
Bmndage Ln - Cottonwood Rd to Fairfax Rd
Bmndage Ln - Fairfax Rd to Morning Dr
hnp rovemcnl/M itigalion Measure
Install Signal
Add SL
Add NT & ST (Modify NR to NTR / SR to STR)
Add NR
Add ST
Add ER, WL, NR ~
Add EL ~
Add NL ~
Add EL i
Add SR
Add EL
Improve to 4-lane, divided
hnprove to 4-lane, undivided
Level of Significance After
Improvement/Mitigation
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd withogt Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Improvements reqd without Project
Page
Analysis Scenario/Traffic Facility
Year 2020 with Project
Signalization
No additional signalization required
Intersection Improvements
Oswell St & SR58 EB Ramps
Segment Improvements
No additional segment improvements required
ImprovemenffMitigatioa Measure
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 ~'acilities arc as deter~qi~¢d in the Traffic Impact Study previously prepared for the adjacent
project located east of Oswcll Street and south o~' State I~.o~,te 5S A~qalysis of these facilities is not required by this study since this project's
estimated traffic volumes are less than the minirnun~ threshold volctmes at these facilities. How~vex, in order to account for cumulative impacts
at these facilities, the required improvements have bee~ llotcd i~ this study along with ealoulafions for the proportionate costs of the required
improvements applicable to this project.
Page 4
GP/ ZC Oswell $ Jet & Zephyr Lane-Traffic Itt act 'tuay
VII. Mitigation (cont'd)
Mitigation
In order lo 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 to maintain
acceptable L~vels of Sen, icc. 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 generated Ixaffic. See
Table 1 -"Summary of Impacts" for improvements required for existing and future 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 ~'affic, a.mitigation
measure is noted in Table I. However, no signalization is required due to the addition of project
generated traffic. It should be noted here that the intersection of the proposed f~ture alignment of
Zephyr Lane (indicated on the '?mpnsed Land Use Designation" Figm'e 5, and the "Proposed
Zoning" Figure 6), with existing Oswell Street, has not been specifically analyzed in this study.
Future volumes along Oswell Sa'eet are difficult to predict and are not adequately reflected in the
model data. However, 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 calculation of the appropriate fee is included in Table 6, using the minimum threshold
volume required for signalization as detailed on Table 6.
Intersection Improvements
The specific mifigalion measures recommended for individual intersections are detailed on Table 6,
"Intersection Improvement/Mitigation". Intersection improvements required for Year 2020 Furore
Traffic Volumes are noted in Table 1 - "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.
Osw¢ll Street & SR 58 EB ~
Segment Improvements
Table 9 "Roadway Segment Laneagn" reflects the lane. age recommended for Existing, Year 2020
Furore 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 I. However, no roadway segments require improvement due to the addition of project
generated traffic.
~ ~,~.~age 12
~.
O,ql(~lNAt
GPA/ZC Oswell Stre & Zephyr Lane-Traffic Imp Study
VIII. Findings
Project's share of Mtt~gat~o
The project's proportionate share of traffic mitigation for intersections has been determined as the ratio of the
project's added peak hour traffic to the total projected traffic volume during the year 2020. Table 6 indicates
the pro-rata share of necessary improvements and mitigation.
Conclusions
If the projected growth within the study area is realized, most of the improvements identified in Table I
"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-RabaYMitigation", of the costs to construct necessary
improvements required due to future traffic growth projections in the study area. Projections of future traffic
growth, though determined with best available data, should be verified by actual counts during future years
prior to actual con$~'uction of the required impruvements identified in this study.
Contribution to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee PrOgram to fund the regional
roadway improvements shall b8 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 the Transportation Impact Fee Program should be in accordance with the Capital Improvement Plan
for the Melropolitan Bakersfield 2010 Plan Area (City of Bakersfield Resolution 142-96)
Table ~: Intersec#on Iml~ovemen(s~Mt~gatlon/Pro'Rata Sh~re . AdYsnt~e Homes OPA/Z(~ Q Oswel151 & Zephyr
iflterse~ion~itlgation j Exist Residential Year 202( COM d ~.
~ Tri~c F~ure ~11 ~'s
~Year 2020 Tra~c + MH~ S~eof
~oJ~ ~itlg
P~ P~ % ~ PHV (6)
~ Os~ll S~eet & Collie A~nue
2: Faid~ Road & C~l~e Aven~
4 Fa~ R~ & N~
~ + p~: No ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ d~
5 M~&N~SV~
8 Faid~ Road & Pionee~ Drive
~ b ~ ~ (~ LOS'C')
10 Mt V~ A~ & ~g~ A~
11 ~ S~&~A~~
~ + Pr~: No m~a~ r~ ~ to ~ d ~ Iraf~
12 M~in~ D~ & Br~ke~e R~d;
13 M~ni~ ~ & Edi~ ~
~ak ~ ~ff~ ~ ~s ~ ~ (~ LOS 'C")
~ss ~ ~ (~sl LOS 'C~', No ~al~ ~ ~ adjace~ ~.
Table $: Inter~ee~on Iml~emen~ .,ItJgafJe~:'m~ata share* Advantage Homes OPAl's.. ,~ Oswell ,~t & Zephyr I..n
Intersection/Mitigation ~ Exl~ Resldeffiial Y~ar 20Z0 Cost M Restd.
Project Traffic Future Impmml~ ProJeof's
Q Year 2020 Traffic * Mlflg. Share of
Project Imp/Mitig
PHV PHV % 1 PHV (6)
15 Brunda.qe Lane & Washinqtcn Street
Not analyzed beyond exisfing since pro,ct added 1152 22 1 09% 2016 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less Ihan .50 (Existing LOS 'B")
Existing: Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
16 Brunda~e Lane & Mt Vernon Avenue
2020: No im~'oveme~ts required fo~ Future 2020 traffic increases 2303 52 t 66% 3 t 25 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due Io additio~ of project traffic
17 Brunda~. e Lane & QuantJco Avenue 4
NOt analyzed beyond existing since project added peak hour traffic is 568 29 1.81 % 861 $0 $O
less than 50 ( EJds~ LOS "B"). No mitigatio~ reqd. by adjacent project.
E~sfing: Signal Wan-ants Safisr~ed: NONE
18 Bru~:Ja~e lane & Oswe~ Street
20'20: Add NR 1936 205 6.12% 3347 $10.000 $612
2020 + Proj: No mifigatio~ required due to addifioo of projec~ traffic
1§ Brunclaqe Lane & Sterfinq Road a
Not anayzed beyond existing since project added peak hour traffic is 614 47 2 94% 1443 $0 $0
less than 50 (Exist LOS "B") No mitigation reqd. by adjacent project
Existing: Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
20 Brunda.qe Lane & Faidax Road
2020: Add ST 1911 57 1 59% 3S87 $40.000 $656
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due lo addition ot project tfalflc
21 Brunda~[e Lane & Morninq Drive ~
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (Exist LOS "C") No mitigation reqd by adjacent project.
2020:Add ER. WL. NR (Requiredwithoottheaddifionot 1730 24 148% 3348 ~ St00.000 $1.483
projects' baffic, as ideofifled in study f~' a~acent project).
22 Brunda~e Lane (~Cotto~wood) & SR58WB Ramps - PM Pe~k ~
2G~. Pinkie S~g~at I Add EL (Re~ wltlx~ the addilk~ ut' '1157 26 2.87~ 2062 ~200.000 $5,746
~Io,M Waoa~s Sa0sfmd: 1,2& I!
23 ~ lane (~Cottomvood) & SR58VVB Ramps-.a.J~l Peak ~
N~ mmlyzed beyond e~sting since pe~-cLadded 97! 32 4.21% 1731 $0 $0
peak hou~ ~aflk: is less than 40 (ExJsti~ LOS 'C~)
24 Cottonwood Road & SR58 E8 Ramps - PM Peak ~
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak ho~r traffic is Bess than 40 (Existing LOS 'C') t 354 35 12.20% 1641 $0 $O
Existi~J: Signal Wacrants Satisfied: 1,2, & 1 t
25 ~offomvood Road & SR58 EB Ramps - AM Peak ~
Not anayzed beyond existing since pmjeot added 1214 23 8.98% 1470 $0 $0
peak ho~ traff~ is less Ihan 50 (F-~sting LOS
Ma~ch 2003
Table ~: Intersection Improvement,..~gatiml/Pro-Rata Share. Advantage Homes OpAtZ , Oswell St & Zephyr Ln
Intersectlofl/Mitlgltlon ~ Exls Residentil! Year 20~ Cost d Resld.
Project Traffic Future Inlp~,m*l I Project*s
QYear 2020 Tra~c+ Mltig. Share of
Project knp4Mitig
PHV PHV % ~ PHV (6)
26 Mt Vernon Avenue & $R58 WB Ramps - PM Peak 7
NO( analyzed beyond existing since Project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (Ex~st LOS 'C'). No mitigatio~ reqd. by adjacent p~oject. 2156 31 080% 3869 $0 $0
2020: ProvUe Signal / Add NL (Required w~thout the addition of
projects' tmffm, as identif'~l ia study for adjacent project).
27 Mt Vemcn Avenue & SR58 WB Ramps - AM Peak 7
No( ahab/zed beyc~d existing since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 30 (Ex~st LOS 'D'). No mitigation reqd. by adjacent project.
2020: P royale Signal (Required without the addition of 2137 27 0.65% 41 ,'8 $0 $0
pro~-.cts' traffic, as identified ia study fa adjacent Project).
28 Mt Verno~ Avenue & SR58 EB Ramps - PM Peak I
less than 40 (Ex~ LOS 'C"). No mitigation reqd. by adjacent project.
2020: Add EL (Required w~thout the addition of 1432 30 291% 2464 $40.000 $1,163
proiects' traflq¢, as idenb1'ied in study for adjacent project)
32 C)swel S~eet & SR58 E8 Ramps - PM Peak z
2020: Pro~de SIgnal / Add EL 777 389 17.44% 2231 $0 $<3
81~ Wan'an~ .Satisfied: 1.2 & 11
33 O~vei 8f~eet & $R58 EB R;m'~ - AM Peak4'1'
~: Plovide S~llnal 558 288 18.00~ 1521
2020 * Proj: No additional ~ required due to addition of p~ojec~ fra~fK;
34 Fair,ax Road & SR58 WB Ramps - PM Peak 7
Table 6; Intersection Improvam~ Mi~a~ro-Rata Share. Advantage Homes GP, O Oswell St & Zephyr Ln
Intersectlon/M~lgstion ~ Exist Residential Year 202C Cost of Reaid.
Project Traffic Future Imprvm't I Project's
O Year 2020 Traffic * Mitlg. Shire of
Project Imp~Mitl~
PHV PHV % 2 PHV (G)
36 Fain'ax Road & SR58 EB Ramps - PM Peak 7
Signa~ Warrants Satisfied: 1.2 & 11
2020 + Proj: No additional mitig~tio~ required due to addition of projec~ Iraffic
37 Fairfax Road & SR58 EB Ramps-AM Peak 7
2020: No improvemenJs required to maintain existing LOS "F" 1217 27 1.54% 1757 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: NO mitigafion requ~-ed due to addition ot project traffic
38 Weedpatch Hwy & SR58 WB Ramps - PM Peak ~
NOt anatyzed beyond ex~sting s~ce project added 1405 23 2.17% 24~4 $0
peak h~Jr traffic is less than 50 (E,~sting LOS '8")
39 Weedpatch ~ & SR58 WB Ramps -AM Peak ~
NOt anayzed beyond e~sting since p~0jec~ added 1375 f3 1.27% 2395 $O $0
peak ho~r traffic is less than 50 (E~dsting LOS
40 Weedpatch Hwy & SR58 EB Ramps -PM Peak ~
Existing: Signal Warrants Satisf~l: 1.8. & 11
Not analyzed b~yond existing since project added peak hour traffic is
less than 40 (Exisl LOS "C") No mifigatio~ reqd by ad}acent proiect
41 ~Veedpatch Hw¥ & SR58 EB Ramps - AM Peak I
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
42 Oswell St & Zephyr Ln (Future Intersection)~
Not specifically analyzed due to inadequate future volume data N/A 389 2431% 1600 $120.000 $29.175
Assume signal required fo~ fee calsulatio~s.
43 Cottom.,.ood Road & Casa Loma Drive ~'~
F.~Stt~: S~gnal Warrants Sa~s~ed: 2 & 11
44 Fairfax Road & Red~nk Road
F-.ids~ng: Signal Wan'ants Sa~ed: None
No~ inaly'zed bey~:~d existleg since project added 728 21 1 31% 1007 $O
peak ho~Jr Uaffic is Jess than 40 ~.xisting LOS 'C')
45, Weedpatch Hwy & Redbank Road ~
Ex'isiingl Signal Warrants Salis~d: No~e
Not analyzed beyond e~sfing since project added 950 t 4 1.4~% 1909 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS ~C"}
46 Fairfax Road & Muller Road ~' 7
Existing: Sigr~al Warra~s Satisf~.-,.d: No~.e
NOt analyzed beyond existing s~nce I~ect added 592 15 0.94% 777 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than .50 (E~sting LOS "B')
Table 6: Intersect]on Improveme, fl#gaUmVPro. Rata Share - Advantage Homes GPA, ~ Oswell St & ZephJ~r Ln
Intersection/Mitigation ~ Exld Reslde~lUal Year 202C Cost o! Redd.
ProJectTraffic Future Iml)f~.n'll Project's
(~ Year 2020 Traffic · Mitig. Share of
Project Imp/Mitlg
PHV PHV % ~ PHV (G)
47 Weedpatch Hwy & Muller Road 4. ?
Existing: Signal Warrants Satisfied: None
Not anayzed beyond existing since project added 817 14 0.88% 1505 $0 $0
peak ho,Jr traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS
PMV = Peak Hour Volume
Percentage Based cn Cai Trans Formula: Project Volume/(Puture Volume - E~dsting Volume) This value is
disproportionately large compared to the value calculaled by the standard method. It unfairly places a large
responsibility upon the developer to mitigate the existing conditions ot an inters~cth3n, which is in direct
conflict with the requirement for the developer to mitigate an intersecbon to a minimum of its existing
operational Level of Sauce.
Project percentage of i~uture traffic is show~ in this column regardless of mitigalio~ requirements.
Additional lanes required as showt't are ~ referefme to existing lanes at time of study su~'ey. Since laneage
coof~u~atla~ may ha~ cha~ged since ~ of survey, intersection analy~s p~nlouts c~tained in the appendix
should be referred to f~ actual tolal laneage co~t'~juraitons required f~ mitigation.
Percentage share at this intersection is based on the project's contrib~ion to the minimum threshold for
s~gnal[zation at this intersection (1280'~ fc~ $ lane by 1 lane Ap~oaches. 1440vph fo~ 2 lane by 1 lane
Approaches. and 160Ovph fo~ 2 lane by 2 lane Approaches)
Project created intersection. Developer shall be responsible for all improvement costs related to this intersection
Costs for improvements are based on follow~og estimates for specific improvements:
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (undeveloped area): $40,000
Add through or lell turn lane, paved w/transition (developed area): $80,000
Add right turn lane, paved: $10,000
Add any lane, striping change only: $5,000
Construct Tralfic Signal: $120,000
Improvements to this intersection are included in the Phase g Melropolltan Bakersfield Regional Transporlation Impact Fee
Program and therefore paid for by prolect's contribution to that fee program
Project's Pro~ata Share Cost Surnmar~
Total Cost of Improvements(Not paid for with RTIF) $725,000
Residential
Projects Pro-Rata Share(Non RTIF) $43,204
Phase II - Transportation Im_~, _,.~ Fee (See Table 10A&IOB) $133,783
Total Traffic Impact Fees $176,986
Per Dwelling Unit Cost (400 D.U.'s)
$442.47
18
A TO R--1/P.U.D.
A
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ZONING MAP 124-02
SEC 02 T 30S R 28E
LEGENO
EXHIBIT "3'
ZONE CHANGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPOSE~D R-1 PUD (FROM A-l)
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 30
SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, MD.M., CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCR BED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE
S.89°52'13"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF
2654.02 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE
S.00°30'22"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF
1331.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER; THENCE N.89°49'27"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF, A
DISTANCE OF 2656.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF
SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N00°35'44"E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1329.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 81.10 ACRES.
p:L3003~)14\LEGALS\RIPUDZONE.DOC',MARCH 10, 2003
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS,
County of Kern )
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield;
and that on the 28th day of Au(lust , 2003 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City
Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 4140 , passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 27th day of AuRust 2003 and
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND AMENDING SECTION 17.06.020
(ZONE MAP NO. 124-02) OF TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE BY CHANGING THE
ZONING FROM A (AGRICULTURE) TO OR-l/PUD (ONE
FAMILY DWELLING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
ON 81.10 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 16,00 FEET SOUTH OF STATE
ROUTE 58 BETWEEN ZYPHYR LANE (EXTENDED),
SHIRLEY LANE (EXTENDED), STERLING ROAD
(EXTENDED) AND OSWELL (EXTENDED).
/s/PAMELA A. McCARTHY
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
DEPUTY