Loading...
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