HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 94-96ARESOLUTION NO. ' 94' 9 {~
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT P96-0419 RESCINDING CONDITION
NUMBERS 1-6 AND 10 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NO. 35-95 OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE
ELEMENT AMENDMENT P96-0419).
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 17, 1996, and THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1996, on General Plan
Amendment P96-0419 of a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
for that site generally located along the north side of Brimhall Road between Jewetta Avenue
and Old Farm Road, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty-
one (21) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a
local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment P96-0419 of the proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as
follows:
Castle & Cooke California, Inc has applied to rescind condition
numbers 1 through 6 and 10 of City Council Resolution No. 35-
95 (Exhbit "B") which approved General Plan Amendment 4-94,
Segment III and such conditions are as follows:
Prior to approval of land division or development proposal, an
archaeological survey must be completed. Any mitigation resulting from
such report shall be implemented prior to recordation of the land
division map or development approval.
Residential development subsequently approved on the site shall contain
no more than 101 lots for single family dwellings. The minimum net
residential lot area shall be no less than 14,000 square feet.
All interior streets within the future residential development shall be
privately maintained, and access from adjacent public streets (Brimhall
Road and Old Farm Road) shall be by privately-maintained and gated
access ways.
Future residential development shall have no access to the existing
Greenhaven Street.
and
10.
Future residential development on the site shall not incorporate any
public right-of-way adjacent to the northerly site boundary.
Future residential development on-site shall incorporate a private,
commonly-maintained park site of 1.20 acres. (NOTE: Conditional Use
Permit is required for the private park facility.)
Conditions 1-6 shall not apply to Tentative Tract 5489 approved May 2,
1991, or to any subsequent tract submitted to subdivide the area shown
as a school site on said tract;
WHEREAS, for the above-described project the Negative Declaration adopted
for General Plan Amendment 4-94, Segment III is adequate to be readopted and to serve as the
Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. P96-0419 and it was determined that
the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration 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 city staff and the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 62-96 on June 20, 1996, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment P96-0419 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, JULY 10, 1996, on the above described General Plan Amendment P96-0419
of the proposed amendment to the Land Use 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 "
findings:
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
1. All required notices have been given.
followed.
The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been
3. The Negative Declaration adopted for General Plan Amendment 4-94,
Segment IIl is adequate to be readopted and to serve as the Negative Declaration for General
Plan Amendment No. P96-0419.
environment.
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
5. The proposed rescission of Condition Numbers 1-6 and 10, is consistent
with the general plan policies and goals.
6. The proposed rescission of Condition Nos. 1-6 and 10, is consistent with
the existing land use designations and proposed land uses in this general area.
7. Condition No. 11, addressing school impact mitigation, of City Council
Resolution No. 35-95 approving General Plan Amendment No. 4-94, Segment III is necessary
to ensure that school impacts are adequately mitigated.
8. Condition No. 5, prohibiting public alley right-of-way along the sites
north boundary, of City Council Resolution No. 35-95 approving General Plan Amendment
No. 4-94, Segment III is necessary to ensure an alley is not constructed at such location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment P96-0419 is hereby
approved and adopted.
3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City
Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment
P96-0419 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting recession of conditions Nos 1-6 and 10 of City
Council Resolution No. 35-95 (Exhibit "B") attached hereto and incorporated as though fully
set forth, for property generally located along the north side of Brimhall Road between Jewetta
Avenue and Old Farm Road as shown on Exhibit "A".
5. That General Plan Amendment P96-0419 approved herein, be combined
with other approved segments described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land Use
Element Amendment.
......... 000 ........
I I-IEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
by the Council of the City of B~ke~eld at a regular meeting thereof held on
. by the following vote:
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED JUL 2 4 1~6
BOB PRICE
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
RED:pjt
June 26, 1996
res\rcc0419
4
EXHIBIT "A'
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P96-0419
RESCIND CONDITIONS 1-6 AND 10 OF
RESOLUTION 35-95 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3633
SR/E(1/2)RS
SR
E(1/2) OLD TOWN ROAD
SR ~g
SR
R-S
SR/E(1/2)RS BIRCHHAVEN AVENUE
~ouNT~ SR/R-S
SR/R- 1 cra' COUNt'
CONNERY WAY
SR SR
R-1 R-1
RENDLEY
25
LONGMEADOW WAY
SR/R-1
CT AREA;
ER
E(5)RS
BRIMHALL
ROAD
T29S, R26£
36
LR/A-20A
109402
RESOLUTION NO. 3 5 ' 9 ~
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS. APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING SEGMENT III
OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010
GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
4-94).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield, ia
accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code. held a public
hearing on MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, and THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1994, on
Segment III of a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty-one (21)
calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of generat circulation: and
WHEREAS. such Segment III of the proposed amendment to the Land
Use Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows:
SEGMENT III:
Martin-Mcintosh for Castle & Cooke Homes, Inc., has
applied to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan consisting of a change from
Suburban Residential - 18,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size to
Suburban Residential - 12,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size on
58.4 acres; and
WHEREAS. for the above-described Segment. an Initial Study was
conducted, and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant
effect on the env/ronment, and a Negative Declaration w/th mitigation was prepared;
and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and
adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEOA and City of Bakersfield's
CEOA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 1994, the Planning Comm/ssion failed to
make a recommendation on the requested general plan amendment and this Council has
fully considered the report by the Planning Director, the environmental document and
Planning Commission minutes; 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, FEBRUARY 22, 1995, on the above described Segment III of
the proposed amendment to the Land Use 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
findings:
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following
1. All required notices have been given.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Quality
Act (CEQA) have been followed.
3. The project, as revised in accordance with staffs recommendation,
will not have a significant effect on the environment.
4. Mitigation measures attached to the project as Exhibit "A" are
included in the project to mitigate impacts.
5. The proposed amendment to the general plan, as revised in
accordance with staffs recommendation, is compatible with surrounding land use
designations and area development.
6. The proposed general plan amendment as revised is consistent with
the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
7. The project proponent has agreed to a condition of approval which
will restrict ~uture lot sizes adjacent to the northerly project boundary to no less than
18,000 square feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings, incorporated herein, are true and
correct.
2. The Negative Declaration for Segment III is hereby approved and
adopted.
3. The report of the Planning Director, 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.
2
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts Segment III of the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bake,~eld 2010
General Plan. constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "B.' attached
hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth. for property generally located on the
northeast comer of Brimhall Road and Old Farm Road. subject to conditions of
approval shown on Exhibit 'A' and mitigation measures in Exhibit
5. That Segment III, approved herein, be combined with other approved
segments described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land Use Element
Amendment, GPA 4-94.
...... oOc
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Council of the Cit~ of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
FEB Z Z _'~_~' . by the following vote:
Assistant CITY CLERK and Ex Offid¥ Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
CITY ATTORNEY
A._~!stant City Attorney
Jammy 19, 19~J
res~494s3.~
EXHIBIT
General Plan Amendment 4-9,1. Segment ill
Zone Change No.
Conditions of Approval
Prior to approval of land division or development proposal an archaeological survey must be
completed. Any mitigation resulting from such report shall be implemented prior to recordation of
the land division map or development approval.
Residential development subsequently approved on the site shall contain no more than.tO0 lots for.~
single family dwellings. The nunimum net residentiallot area shah be no less than 14,000 square feet.
All interior streets within the future residential development shah be prrvately maintained, and access
from adjacent public streets (BrimhaH Road and Old Farm Road) shah be by privately-maintained
and gated accessways.
4. Future residential development shall have no access to the existing Greenhaven Street.
Future residentialdevelopment on the site shall not incorpornte any public alley right-of-way adjacent
to the northerly site boundary.
Future residential development on-site shah incorporate a private, commonly-maintained park site
of i.20 acres. (NOTE: Conditional Use Permit i,t required for the private park facility.)
PuMic Works Deonrtment:
At the time of submission of a tentative subdivision map covering the project area, a local traffic study
identifying local traffic impacts and recommending measures to mitigate these impacts will be
required.
Brimhall Road shall be constructed in a maximum of two phases adjacent to the project area.
BrimhaH Road shah be constructed with a 96' curb-to-curb width as required for arterial streets with
hike lanes.
10.
Unless this property joins the formation of an assessment district for the construction of the future
trunk sewer pipeline in Allen Road, a sewer fee WIll be paid at the time of development within this
area for this future trunk sewer pipeline. This fee will be approximately $300 per dwelling unit.
Conditions 1-6 shall not apply to Tentative Tract 5489 approved May 2, 1991, or to any subsequent
tract submitted to subdivide the area shown as a school site on said tract.
11.
Prior to issuing any building permit for residential construction within the project area, the City of
Bakersfield Building Department must have received written certification from both the Kern High
School District and the Rosedale Union School District that the project's effect on its public school
facilities have been or WIll be adequately mitigated.
12.
13. Average lot size to be no less than 18:.000 square feet.
p:494s3.ea
Lots slong the western and northern boundaries shall be no less than 18,000 square feet in area.
SR
CONNERY WAY
SR SR
LONGMEADOW WAY
SR
25
EXHIBIT B
GPA 4-94, SEGMENT Iii
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
SR
SR
OLD TOWN. ROAD
SR
sR (~ a.ooo)
(14.ooo)
BRIMHAt. L ROAD
SR
BIRCHHAVEN--.kVENUE
SR
ER
T2~S, ~6E
.t6
LR
ZONE CHANGE 5599
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
E(1/2)
CONNERY WAY
£(1/2)RS
OLD TOWN ROAD
RENDLEY
R-1~ ~i -~-,T:-'
LONGMEADOW WAY ~
R-1
25
R-1 (18,000)
:E (14,000
B~MHAJU_ ROAD
A-20A
R-S
~!l '
,~:~ R-S
BIRCHHAVEN AV~NIJE
R-S ~
E(5)RS
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT
OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 1996
9. HEARINGS continued
d. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. P96-0419 (Ward 4):
Roger Mcintosh, representing Castle & Cooke California, Inc. requests
to rescind Condition Nos. 1 - 6 and 10 of Resolution No. 35-95 which
approved General Plan Amendment No. 4-94, Segment HI, for property
located along the north side of Brimhall Road between Jewetta Avenue
and Old Farm Road.
Ordinance rescinding Condition Nos. 1 - 6 and 10 of Ordinance No.
3633, which approved Zone Change No. 5599, for property located on
the north side of Brimhall Road between Jewetta Avenue and Old Farm
Road.
BARDISTY: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers we're conducting, reconducting this hearing to rectify
a procedural discrepancy in the last hearing. Basically, the abstention from the proceedings by
Councilman McDermott who lives in the area but not terribly close. And so it was determined really
that we should reconduct the heating. Staff recommends that you rescind the action on the prior July
24th and that you take testimony anew and treat it as though it is a fresh case before you. This is to
change the-- to allow the development to accommodate 18,000 square foot lots which were the
originally planned size for these lots in the area and then the conditions were placed on there as part
of a approval for 12,000 square foot lots which were actually increased to 14,000 square foot lots
in the heating. So with that I'd recommend you reopen the hearing and--- or just open the heating
and conduct it and take your testimony. There was actually only Mr. Mclntosh's testimony at the last
heating.
MAYOR: Thank you. Attorney, I need an answer. He said we need to rescind. Do we need to
have a vote to reconsider before we reopen the public hearing?
SKOUSEN: No, Your Honor, it's been my legal opinion that that action was null and void, so
you're basically starting over. That action had no force and effect.
(Hearing opened for public testimony; one speaker; heating closed)
ROWLES: In the absence of Councilmember McDermott, I would like to go ahead and make the
motion to adopt the resolution rescinding the July 24, 1996 decision of the City Council on this
project and adopt a resolution rescinding Condition Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Resolution No.
35-95 with the addition that future residential developments shall have no access to the existing
Greenhaven Street and access shown on the revised Tentative Tract 5489 approved on June 20, 1996
to existing Greenhaven Street shall be deleted and replaced with a final lot on the final map; and this
be first reading of the ordinance rescinding Conditions Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Ordinance
No. 3633.
MAYOR: We've got a motion. Please record your vote.
CLERK: Motion is approved; 5 ayes with Councilmember Smith absent and Councilmember
McDermott abstaining.
Bakersfie ~ California, July 24, 199 - Page 9
9. HEARINGS continued
ACTION TAKEN
Development Services Director Hardisty
provided background information.
Hearing opened at 7:45 p.m.
Roger Mcintosh, representing Castle &
Cook California, Inc., requested
Condition No. 4 remain as a condition
on the General Plan; and Condition
Nos. 1 - 3, 5, 6 & 10 be deleted.
Hearing closed at 7:48 p.m.
Motion by McDermott to adopt
Resolution and give First Reading to
Ordinance with amendments to both:
· Condition Nos. 1 - 3, 5, 6 & 10
remain;
· Delete Condition Nos. 1, 2 & 4;
· Allow adjustment of the lot issue
at the time of filing the final
map
APPROVED
10.
REPORTS
Graffiti Task Force Report No. 1-96
regarding Revision of Graffiti
Abatement Policies for the City of
Bakersfield.
Correspondence was received from
Assemblyman Trice Harvey, dated July
23, 1996, in support of the proposed
"zero-tolerance" approach to abating
graffiti.
Economic Development Director Wager
provided background information.
Deputy City Attorney Hernandez
provided an overhead presentation.
McDermott requested a report from
Police Department regarding juvenile
arrests/enforcement and courts
imposing punishment/liability.
APPROVED
Motion byMcDermott to accept written/
oral Report.
APPROVED
e
Bakersfie! California,
HEARINGS continued
August 21,
17 % - Page 11
AOTION TAKEN
de
Hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.
Motion by Rowles to rescind the July
24, 1996 decision of the City Council
(Resolution No. 94-96), adopt
Resolution rescinding Condition Nos. 1
- 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Resolution No. 35-
95 with the addition that future
residential developments shall have no
access to the existing Greenhaven
Street; and access shown on Revised
Tentative Tract 5489, approved June
20, 1996 to existing Greenhaven
Street, shall be deleted and replaced
with a final lot on the final map; and
give First Reading to Ordinance.
AFPROVED
ABS MCDERMOTT
AB SMITH
10. REPORTS
11. DEFERRED BUSINESS
a. ordinance amending Subsection D. of
section 5.06.010 and Subsection B. of
Section 5.06.060 of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code relating to adult
entertainment businesses. (First
Reading 8/7/96)
FR
PUBUC STATEMENTS continued
Ce
The following individuals spoke
regarding adult entertainment
businesses ordinance:
Connie Wattenbarger; Robert Owen;
Andrew Mills; Rosalyn Strode; Virgil
Pattarino; and Norma Holmes.
11. DEFERRED BUSINESS continued
City Attorney Skousen clarified the
ordinance, defining the difference
between booths and theaters.
McDermott requested the ordinance be
amended to state "ten or fewer
persons".