HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 163-99RESOLUTION NO. 6 $ ' 9 9
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P99-0123
OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
2010 GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance
with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on
MONDAY, September 13, 1999, and THURSDAY, September 16, 1999, on General Plan
Amendment P99-0123 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 (20) calendar days
before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Califomian, a local newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, such General Plan Amendment P99-0123 of the proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as
follows:
General Plan Amendment P99-0123
Cleo Brannon has applied to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of amending the land use designation
from ER (Estate Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 10.80 acres for that
site generally located along the east side of Calloway Drive between Seabeck
Avenue and Rosedale Highway as shown on Exhibit "C"; and
WHEREAS, for the above-described project, an Initial Study was conducted and
it was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration with mitigation 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 the city staff and the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 145-99 on September 16, 1999, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment
P99-0123 subject to conditions, mitigation measures listed in Exhibit Nos. "A" and "B" and this
Council has fully considered the finding made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that
Resolution; and
Page 1
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 3, 1999 on the above described General Plan Amendment
P99-0123 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
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given.
2. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act have been followed.
3. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
The proposed project is consistent with the Circulation Element Policy No. 36
and Land Use Element Policy Nos. 17,19, 20, 26, 27, 37, 42 and 44.
Po/icy No. 36 - Prevent streets and intersections from degrading be/ow
Level of Service "C" where possible due to physical constraints (as
defined in a Level of Service ordinance) or when the existing Level of
Service is be/ow "C" prevent where possible further degradation due to
new development or expansion of existing development with a three part
mitigation program: adjacent right-of-way dedication, access
improvements and/or an area-wide impact fee. The area-wide impact fee
would be used where the physical changes for mitigation are not possible
due to existing development and/or the mitigation measure is part of a
/arger project, such as freeways, which will be built at a/aterdate.
The "level of service (LOS)" will not degrade below LOS "C" due to
implementation of mitigation measures stated in the traffic study required
for this project and the mitigation measures provided by the public works
depadment.
Po/icy No. 17- (Second paragraph)
Allow for the intensification and development of existing commercial
areas in an infill fashion.
Subject site is located adjacent to and in close proximity to "GC" property;
electrical transmission lines/towers located along the northern portion of
the subject site act as a barrier separating the commercial and residential
development; and, in consideration of the sites adjacency and proximity
to "GC" designated property, the subject site, with approval of the
requested "GC" designation, is considered infill of a commercial area.
Page 2
Policy No. 19 - Encourage a separation of at least one-half mile between
new commercial designations.
PG&E has a 259 foot wide easement along the northern portion of the
subject site. Permanent structures cannot be constructed within this
easement. The easement effectively separates the residential
development from commercial development. Subject site is adjacent to
existing GC land use designations. Consequently, the subject site is an
addition to existing GC designated land. Also, development of the subject
site lends support to Policy No. 17.
Policy No. 20 - Locate major (regional) commercial uses in proximity to
existing regional centers (such as Valley Plaza and East Hills Mall), and
in proximity to future regional serving commercial centers in the
downtown, southwest, northwest and northeast, as designated on the
Land Use Policy Map.
Subject site is located within the northwest "mixed use center~'. Many of
the land uses allowed within the "GC" land use designation and C-2
zoning district are major commemial uses and would serve the Rosedale
area.
Policy No. 26 - Require that commercial development provide design
features such as screen walls, landscaping and height, setback and
lighting restrictions between the boundaries of adjacent residential land
use designations so as reduce impacts on residences due to noise,
traffic, parking, and differences in scale.
Development of project site must be consistent with ordinance
requirements. Subsequent to Section 17.24.050 of the City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code requires the following: "Commercial development
proposed adjacent to property zoned or designated for residential
development shall be required to be separated by a solid masonry wall
constructed a minimum height of 6 feet from highest grade. Any wall
located within or along the front yard area shall not exceed a height of
four feet. Along Street frontages, landscaping shall be required in
combination with a solid wall, to screen the commercial development from
the residential uses"; and
Developer must have site plan approval for site development.
Subsequent to Section 17.08.060 Site Plan Approval Required, of the City
of Bakersfield Municipal Code requires the following: "No person shall
undertake, conduct, use or construct, or cause to be undertaken,
conducted, used or constructed, any of the following without first
obtaining site plan approval: any change in the actual use of land or
improvements thereon, including, but not limited to, the construction of
any improvements which require a building permit, enlargement,
reconstruction or renovation of improvements. Provided, however, site
plan approval may be consolidated with other discretionary approvals
such as conditional use permits and planned commercial developments".
Page 3
Policy No. 27 - Require that automobile and truck access to commercial
properties sited adjacent to designated residential parcels be located at
the maximum practical distance from the residential parcel.
A PG&E electrical transmission line/tower easement exists along the
northern portion of the subject site. This easement would prohibit
automobile and truck access adjacent to residences.
Policy No. 37 - Enhance existing and established new centers as the
principal focus of development and activity in the planning area, around
which other land uses are grouped. Centers should be linked by
adequate transportation facilities and may be linked to the Kern River,
canals or other resource amenities. Centers may be differentiated by
functional activity, density/intensity, and physical charecte~
Development of the subject site to commercial land uses will enhance
and complement existing commercial, residential and industrial
development within the "northwest mixed use center". Transportation
facilities include bus service provided by GET. Transportation related
facilities (arterials) within this area include Calloway Ddve, Rosedale
Highway, Coffee Road and Hageman Road. The proposed route for the
Kern River Freeway is located one and one-half miles south of the subject
site.
Policy Nos. 42 and 44 - (42) Provide forthe establishment of the foflowing
new major centers as the focus of development in the planning area:
a) Southwest;
b) Northwest: and
c) Northeast.
(44) Allow forthe development of a center in northwest Bakersfield to
serve the Rosedale Community and adjacent rural areas, containing retail
commercial, light industrial, moderate and high density residential, and is
surrounded by Iow and estate residential densities, according to the
following principles:
a) Attempt to focus on open space amenities: and
b) Promote pedestrian activity and where feasible attempt to link
land uses with the Kern Rive~
The proposed GPA/ZC will further the establishment of the "center~'
concept in the northwest. Development of the site would make
commercial uses (commercial and office) available to serve the Rosedale
area.
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
P~e4
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-raference absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency's
decision to prepare a Negative Declaration for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment P99-0123 is hereby
approved and adopted.
The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning
Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved.
The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment
P99-0123 of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes as shown on
the map marked Exhibit "C', attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set
forth, for property generally located along the east side of Calloway Drive
between Seabeck Avenue and Rosedale Highway subject to conditions, of
approval, mitigation measures shown on Exhibit Nos. "A" and "B".
That General Plan Amendment P99-0123, approved herein, be combined with
other approved cases described in separate resolutions, to form a single Land
Use Element Amendment.
--- o0o----
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 0 3 999 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER b,~Ol~ ~..
COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and Ex Offi¢i~,/~lerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Page 5
NOV 03 ~999
APPROVED
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
By:
S:~Dole~P99-0123~,CC GPA R~solution.wpd
Page 6
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions, Mitigation Measures
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions, Mitigation Measures
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0123
city of Bakersfield Plannino Deoartment
Given the current development and use of the property, no cultural resource
investigation is recommended at this time. If cultural resources are unearthed during
ground disturbance, all work should halt in the area of the find. A professional
archaeologist should be called in to evaluate the findings and make any necessary
mitigation recommendations.
Establish a reciprocal access easement prior to issuance of any building permit across
the subject site from Calloway Drive to the MC (Major Commercial) designated property
located along the east side of the subject site.
State of California Der, artment of Conservation
If excavation or grading operations uncover a previously unrecorded well, the Division
district office in Bakersfield must be notified by the applicant and or property owner prior
to any permit issuance; previously unrecorded wells may require remedial operations.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
For item nos. 5,6 and 7, a letter of compliance from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District must be submitted to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department prior to
the issuance of any building permit.
"Provide transit enhancing infrastructure such as transit shelters: benches: route signs
and displays; and or bus turnouts."
"Provide pedestrian enhancing infrastructure such as direct pedestrian connections and
paths; pedestrian safety designs; street lighting; and/or pedestrian signage and
signalization."
"Provide bicycle-enhancing infrastructure such as bikeways/paths connecting to bikeway
system; and/or secure bicycle parking."
Pacific Gas and Electric Comoanv
To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, developer
shall comply with the California Public Utilities Commission mandated specific clearance
requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects and construction
activities.
Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and
prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance
operation of PG&E's facilities.
Exhibit "A"
GPA/ZC P99-0123
Page 2
10.
Developer will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing
PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development.
11. Developers shall consult with PG&E as early in their planning stage as possible.
12.
Construction will not be allowed within the PG&E easement without first obtaining a
"consent to common use", after plans have been approved by PG&E.
13.
Development plans affecting relocation of PG&E transmission facilities could also
require formal approval of the CPUC. Proponents of such plans shall consult with PG&E
early in the planning stage for additional information and assistance
Traffic Imoact Study Commercial Develooment North of Rosedale Hiohwav East Side of
Callowav Drive
13. For better access to and from the development, install half street improvements along:
East side of Calloway Drive, adjacent to the project.
14. Modify traffic signal at Entrance Street of project to accommodate project traffic.
15. Upgrade traffic signals and intersection at the following locations:
Rosedale Highway and Fruitvale Avenue;
Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road; and
Rosedale Highway and Calloway Road.
City of Bakersfield Public Works Department
16..
Prior to site plan approval of the first development within the project, dedication to
arterial standards for the full frontage of the project plus the frontage from the south
project boundary southerly to the existing full width improvements shall be provided.
17.
Upon the first development within the project, median fees shall be paid for the full
frontage of the project.
18.
Piecemeal construction of major streets is discouraged. Upon completion of the
separation of grade project south of Rosedale Highway, this area will be the only
section from Hageman Road to south of White Lane that is not improved full width.
Therefore, prior to occupancy of any new structure within the project, the entire frontage
of the project plus the frontage from the south project boundary southerly to the existing
full width improvements shall be improved to arterial standards.
Improvements will include modification to and relocation of the traffic signal standard as
required. Sidewalk construction will not be required adjacent to the areas not within the
project until development on or subdivision of those areas.
Exhibit "A"
GPNZC P99-0123
Page 3
19.
The following mitigation is based on the review of the traffic study by Crenshaw Traffic
Engineering, and the fee shall be paid with building permits:
a. Phase II traffic impact fee ($543,401 = $67.12 per daily trip).
The intersection of Rosedale Highway and Fruitvale Avenue - Future
expansion of intersection with dual left turn lanes for the east leg (westbound left
tums) and the south leg (northbound left turns), three (total) through lanes for
each direction of travel and right of way acquisition as needed to accommodate
the improvements. Developer's share of the costs is 0.45 percent based on
project traffic.
The intersection of Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive - Future
expansion of the intersection with dual left turn lanes and a three (total) through
lanes for each leg of the intersection. Developer's share of the costs is 5.6
percent, based on the project traffic.
The intersection of Rosedale Highway and Coffee Road - Future expansion
of the intersection. Developer's share of the costs is 1.5 percent, based on the
project traffic.
On Calloway, adjacent to the project site - opening day mitigation - full street
improvements on the east side of Calloway Drive. The developer would be
responsible for the entire cost of this improvement.
On Calloway at the entrance to the site - opening day mitigation - modification
of the existing traffic signal on Calloway. The developer would be responsible for
the entire cost of this improvement.
RED
s:gpa-sept~p99-0123\ea-con
EXHIBIT "B"
Mitigation Measures, Conditions of Approval
Proportionate Share of Impact Cost
P:\P99-0123XPC SR.wpd
August 17, 1999 (3:19PM)
The developer's percent of impact of the cost of these
traffic signals and street segments is computed as:
Progect Generated Volumes
2020 Volumes
SIGNAL INSTALLATION CALCULATIONS
Rosedale Hwy/Fruitvale Ave. 30
6605
Rosedale Hwy/Coffee Rd. 125
8285
Rosedale Hwy/Calloway Dr.
410
7375
= 0.0045 x 100 = 0.45%
= 0.015 x 100 = 1.5 %
= 0.056 x 100 = 5.6 %
9-117
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPACT
This project will affect other locations within the City of Bakersfield and some impact will be
expected.
The following locations listed on the City of Bakersfield "Regional Transportation Facillity List -
Metro Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program" may be affected by this project with five (5)
Peak Hour Trips or more.
Dev. Total Dev. Improv. Dev.
Allen Road
SR 58 to Brimhall Rd. Street Improvements
5 799 0.006 1,078,739 6,472
Brimhall Road
Calloway to Coffee
Harvest Creek Rd.
Street Improvements 5
Traffic Sig. Installation 5
2895 0.0017 346,098 588
2895 0.0017 -0- -0-
Calloway Drive
Olive to Hageman Street Improvements 15
Friant Canal Widen Canal Bridge 10
Itageman to Meacham Street Improvements 40
Meacham to SR 58 Street Improvements 140
SR 58 to Brimhall Street Improvements 105
~ AT&SF RR Grade Sepemtion 105
Bfimhall & C Valley Canal
Street Improvements 30
C Valley Canal & Kern River
Bridges 30
C Valley Canal to Stockdale
Street Improvements 30
1583 0.0095 578,044 5A92
1411 0.0042 500,000 2,100
2369 0.0169 -0- -0-
2467 0.057 540,079 30,785
3895 0.027 2,110,000 5,697
3895 0.027 1,500,000 40,500
4554 0.007 934,000 6,538
4810 0.006 3,500,000 21,000
4810 0.006 778,333 4,670
Coffee Road
SR 58 to Brimhall
Brimhall to Truxton
~ AT&SF RR
Street Improvements 35
Street Improvements 20
Grade Sepeation 35
4929 0.007 691,071 4,837
6421 0.003 276,429 829
4905 0.007 1,500,000 10,500
Fruitvale Avenue
I-Iageman to Meany
Meany to SR 58
~ Meany
Street Improvement 15
Street Improvement 25
Traffic Sig. Installation 15
Traffic Sig. Insm!lation 20
1209 0.012 545,000 654
1293 0.019 817,500 15,532
1293 0.012 120,000 1,440
1293 0.02 120,000 2,400
9-117 -29-
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IMPACT - continued
Hageman Road
Verdugo to Calloway
Calloway to 1300 E
SR 58 (Rosedale Hwy)
~ Allen Road
Allen Rd. to Jewetta
Jewetta to Calloway
Calloway to Coffee
Coffee to Fruitvale
Fruitvale to Mohawk
Mohawk to Gibson
~ Old Farm Road
~ Jewetta
~AT & SFRR
~ Friant Kern Canal
btwn Coffee/Fmitwale
~ Verdugo
~ Main pDTa Drive
~ Mohawk
Dev. Total Dev. Improv. Dev.
Traffic Traffic Share Cost ~
Street Improvements 20 1982 0.01 482,104
Street Improvements 25 2421 0.01 53,750
Signal Modification 55 3338 0.02
Street Improvements 70 4246 0.165
Street Improvements 170 4812 0.035
Street Improvements 130 6536 0.02
Street Improvements 22 5873 0.004
Street Improvements 22 5174 0.004
Street Improvements 22 7709 0.003
Traffic Sig. Installation70 4248 0.017
Worms Construction 150 4612 0.033
Grade Sep. Wide. 150 4952 0.03
Widen Canal Bridge 45 5873 0.008
Widen 2 Canal Bridges 45 5873 0.008
Signal Modification 170 4612 0.04
Traffic Sig. Installation100 6536 0.015
Traffic Sig. Installation6 11372 0.0005
40,000
1,510,137
1,510 137
1,510 137
1,510 137
755 069
1,132 603
120 000
120,000
480,000
395,000
600,000
60,000
120,000
4,821
537
800
249,173
52,855
30,203
6,040
3,220
3,398
2,040
3,960
14,400
3,160
4,800
900
60
TOTAL 543,401
9-117
-30-
EXHIBIT "C"
Maps
P:\P99-0123XPC SR.wpd
August 17, 1999 (12:59PM)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
P99-0123
THEODORA LR
AVE.
SR
GC
-'1
cci 19
I'1
OC P
END~Ai/OR
J ELEMENI',4t~Y
I SCHOOL
~C~M
'MR
COLFAX CT. 3
TAMPICO CT.D
LMR
TOKELAND CT3
LMR
SEABECK ~
20
GC
\
LMR \\
GIG I
LMR j
ALKI COURT j
LMR I n-
I:
_MR
LMR
LMR
LMR
CHESAW CT. 0
LMR I
AVENUE
LMR ~'--~ Ii
T29S, R27E
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY (STATE HWY. 58)
39906