Loading...
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".