The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 135-96RESOLUTION NO. 1 8 5 ' 9 S A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CASE NO. P96-0544). 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, SEPTEMBER 16 and THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 on 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 (2 l) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has proposed to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from High Density Residential to High Medium Density Residential on 20.5 acres, for property located on the east side of Old River Road, between Campus Park Drive on the north and Pacheco Road on the south; and WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, an Initial Study was conducted, and it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration with mitigations was prepared; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA and City ofBakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 91-96 on September 19, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of this General Plan Amendment subject to mitigation measures listed in Exhibit "A" 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, NOVEMBER 20, 1996, on the above described 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 2. been followed. 3. 4. ameliorate impacts. 5. WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: All required notices have been given. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation measures as shown on Exhibit "A" are included in the project to The proposed High Medium Density land use designation is compatible with both existing and proposed land uses and zoning in the vicinity. 6. The proposed type and intensity of development is consistent with surrounding patterns of planned residential uses. 7. The proposed residential density is consistent with the level of circulation access and public services expected to be available in the area. 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 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 Case No. P96-0544, a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 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 east side of Old River Road, between Campus Park Drive on the north and Pacheco Road on the south, subject to mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A". ......... 000 ........ 2 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 NOV 2 0 199~; , by the following vote: NOES: COUNC~.MEMBER I ~/~ ~ ABS~AIN: COUNCILMEMBER ~ -'--- A8S8~: coUNCILMEFS'ER-- ---------'-- Acting CITY CLERK and Ex ~icio C erk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED NOV 2 0 1996 ....¢;--~, , /,, ~PJ%TRIC~/~ J. DEMOND VICE~YOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY MJM October 4, 1996 res\rg0544cc EXHIBIT "A" Concurrent General Plan AmendmentJ Zone Change Case P96-0544 Recommended Mitigation Measures Should any unrecorded cultural resources, including human remains, be discovered onsite as a result of future construction or development activities, work shall be halted in the area of the discovery. A qualified archaeologist shall be called in to evaluate the findings and make any necessary mitigation measures. In the event that human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. Proof of compliance with any recommendations resulting from such evaluation, if required, shall be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at California State University, Bakersfield, and to the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department. The following measures shall be required as mitigation for traffic and circulation impacts related to project implementation, as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MITIGATION MEASURES IntersectionlMitigation~ Street SegmentJMitigation 1 Rid(~e Oak Drive & Old River Road 2020: No mitigation required. 2020 + Proj: No mitigation required. 2 White Lane & Old River Road~ 2020: Add EL, ET, WL, WT, NL, SL. 1379 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. White Lane & Park View Drives 3 2020: Install signal. 1558 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. Cam13us Park & Buena Vista Roads 4 2020: Intersection not analyzed beyond existing scenario. 322 2020 + Proj: Intersection not analyzed beyond existing scenario. Cam13us Park Drive & Mountain Vista Drive4.5 5 2020: Intersection not analyzed beyond existing scenario. 106 2020 + Proj: Intersection not analyzed beyond existing scenario. EXIST PHV 691 2020 TR 8848 PROJECT FUTURE+ TRAFFIC PROJECT I PHV %2 I PHV I 46 2.15% 2143 66 0.85% 3861 28 0.99% 2825 18 0.95% 1894 19 1.48% 662 Exhibit "A" GPNZC P96-0544 Page 2 Intereection/Mitigation= Street Segment/Mitigation 6 CamPus Park Drive & Old River Road 2020: Install signal/add EL,WL,NT,SL. 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. Caml~us Park Drive & Park View Drive4.5 7 2020: Intersection not analyzed beyond existing scenario 2020 + Proj: Intersection not analyzed beyond existing scenario. Pacheco Road & Old River Road~ 2020: Install Signal/Add EL,ER,WL,WR, NL,NT,SL,2ST. 8 2020 + Prej: No additional mitigation required. Pacheco Road & Gosford Road~ 9 2020: Install signal/Add NT, ST. 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. Old River Road ~ S.P.R.R. Branch~,8 10 2020: Two lanes in each direction required. 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. Pacheco Road between Old River & Gosford6 11 2020: Two lanes in each direction required. 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. Old River Road south of Pacheco Road~ 2020 EXIST TR 5848 PROJECT FUTURE+ TRAFFIC PROJECT 163 108 3.24% 3337 273 19 1.19% 546 60 88 1.64% 2689 840 45 0.53% 4209 N/A 88 2.87% 1532 47 3.08% 1526 12 2020: Two lanes in each direction required. 13 1.04% 1250 2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required. The project's share of mitigation was reduced at these intersections since these signals will be partially funded by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee. Project pementage of future traffic is shown in this column regardless of mitigation requirements. Additional lanes required as shown are with reference to existing lanes at time of study survey. Since laneage configurations may have changed since time of survey, intersection analysis printouts contained in the appendix should be referred to for actual total laneage configurations required for mitigation. Percentage share at this intersection is based on the project's contribution to the minimum threshold for signalization at this intersection (1280vph for 1 lane by I lane Approaches, 1440vph for 2 lane by I lane Approaches, and 1600 vph for 2 lane by 2 lane Approaches), Intersection not analyzed beyond Existing Scenario since peak project volumes are below thresholds set in Caltrans Guidelines. Segment volumes used for "2020 Future + Project" Volumes for these facilities were taken from Kern COG Traffic Model data. PHV-- Peak Hour Volume Exhibit "A" GPNZC P96-0544 Page 3 = The developer shall provide cost estimates, to be approved by the City Engineer, of those mitigation improvements shown on the traffic study submitted with the application. The developer/subdivider shall pay his percentage shares of those improvements. Upon subdivision of the property, municipal sewer service to each lot shall be provided. Prior to approval of any improvement plans, a proposal for providing that municipal service to each lot shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The proposal shall include provisions for providing service to the entire parcel, not just the portion being considered for the GPA. If a new pump station is required to provide service for this development, then the developer shall perform an economic analysis of the operation and maintenance over the expected life of this pump station and, prior to acceptance by the City of this pump station, shall pay a fee based on the economic analysis for this station's operation and maintenance. Any upgrades to existing sewer systems or facilities will be the responsibility of the developedsubdivider. A drainage plan of the area to be submitted prior to approval of the improvement plans to show that the development will conform to the master drainage study. Necessary flowage/drainage easements as indicated in the approved drainage study, which may be off-site from a proposed subdivision, shall be submitted to the City prior to recordation of any subdivision map. MJM:pjt October 3, 1996 p:gO544ea EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P96-0544 \ HMR \ \ \ \ \ LF \ \ \ 18° PACHECO LR o 400 I I SCALE IN FEET T50S, R27E HMR LANNEAU COURT ~ ' I LR COULTER COURT LR LR .~ LR \ LR LR LR