HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3921ORDINANCE NO. 8 9 2 l
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING CONDITION NO. 34 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3803 PERTAINING TO THE
REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPED MEDIAN
IMPROVEMENTS IN KERN CANYON ROAD SOUTH OF
STATE ROUTE 178 IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
(ZONE CHANGE P99-0234)
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions
of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on a request to delete Condition No. 34 of Ordinance No. 3803
pertaining to the requirement for installation of a landscaped median in Kern Canyon
Road south of State Route 178; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 106-99 on June 17, 19991 the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance modifying Condition
of Approval No. 34 of Ordinance No. 3808 to allow the phased installation of the
landscaped median in Kern Canyon Road with the development of adjoining property,
and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by the Planning
Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed
project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
(General Rule), as there is no possibility that the requested amendment could have a
significant effect on the environment;, and the Council has considered said findings and
all appear to be true and correct; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for the adjoining property allows
General Commercial development; and
WHEREAS, Condition No. 34 requiring median installation is a condition
of approval on both the general plan and zoning for the adjacent property to the east of
the project site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the
following findings:
1. All required notices have been given.
2. The project has been found to be exempt from the requirements of
' CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines.
3. Installation of a median within arterial roadways is required by the
Street Design Standards of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Circulation
Element.
Median construction within arterial roadways is required to provid~,~'/(~',~,~
L~R~L
for traffic safety and a minimum of conflicts and hazards on principal travel routes
within the City.
5. The provision and maintenance of landscaping within roadway
medians is consistent with Circulation Element standards, and is necessary for the
maintenance of a consistent theme and quality of aesthetic design throughout the City.
6. The provision of requiring median and landscaping improvements
in phases is consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, and is
supported in this instance by the Public Works Department.
7. The applicant shall furnish to the city sufficient fees or posting of a
bond to guarantee installation and maintenance of the median.
SECTION 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. That Condition No. 34 of Zone Change 5546 is hereby modified as
shown on Exhibit "B' attached hereto.
3. That Zone Change No. P99-0234 as outlined above for that site
shown in Exhibit "A", is hereby approved subject to the conditions of approval of Zone
Change No. 5546 as adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 3803 and as modified herein,
subject to prior approval of General Plan Amendment No. P99-0234.
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its passage.
......... O00 .........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
AI.{~ 2 D )999 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES. SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCiLMEMBER ~.J o ¢,.I ¢--
COUNClLMEMBER ~,~ I~1
COUNClLMEMBER N Dr~ ~
,~/CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
/ Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AUG :~ ~i ~
YOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BART J. THILTGEN
City Attorney
By: /--- -~/~'~:~
S:\OZC-0234.CC
EXHIBIT A
ZONE CHANGE
P99-0234
A
~'ATE HIGHWAY 178
MED'AN
LANm
REQUIREMENT
¢-2
21
R-1
R-1
R-S-2.SA
R-1
R-H
R-1
T29S, R29£
EXHIBIT "B"
GPA P99-0234/Zone Change P99-0234
Amended
Condition of Approval No. 34
of
Zone Change Case 5546/Ordinance No. 3803
With the first development within the GC area, a landscaped median shall be
constructed along the project frontage on Kern Canyon Road (State Route 184) in
conformance with City and Ca/trans requirements and standards, subject to an
agreement with the City for the payment of appropriate fees and/or bonding satisfactory
to the Public Works Department, to ensure future installation and maintenance thereof.
Left-turn movements across State Route 184 shall be restricted to specific locations
approved by Ca/trans. Landscaping improvements within the required median may be
phased in concert with future development phasing along the adjacent portions of
project frontage, subject to the payment of appropriate fees and/or bonding satisfactory
to the Public Works Department, to ensure future installation and maintenance thereof.
MJM:
05/26/99
S:\P99-O234zc.con
Minutes! PCT Thumday~, June 17T 1999
Pa~e 13
zone change on the property and 2) Subject to a
agrees to a pm-rata share in the maintenance district for ti
recommend same to the City Council. Motion camed
vote:
park and
roll call
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle,
McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac
NOES:
ABSENT: None
Commissioner
adopt a
denying the
seconded r Commissioner Sprague, to
and
~ change from R-1 to C-1 on 13.65 gross acres as
same to the City Council. Motion carried
roll call vote:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhenens, Kemper, McGinnis,
Sprague, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A 10 minute braak was teken at9 p.m.
S.4.a) hnerat Plan Amendnmnt P99-0234 - John Thomaen (W-rd 3)
Combined with 5.4.b bek~v.
C, ommissiene~ Spmgu~deciamd a.confli~t of intem~ on this prc)ie(~
Staff report recommending denial, but allow defen-ai or phasing of landscaping'.
subject to, financial guarantee, was given. Mr. Gredy mentioned that the
Commission should have a memo dated June 17, 1999, that rssponds to a
question whether or not the applicant wee. aware of the median and did he raise
that ~ at the time. There is attecbed some background material which shows
that the applicant was aware of the condition at the time and wanted to request
relief from it. He was informed, however, that since the condition was applied by
recommendation of the Planning Commission when taking action on the general
plan amendment and then confirmed by the Council that we could not act on
such a request. The applicant was advised that it was neceasa~/to make an
application for a concurrent gpa and zone change to the Planning Commission to
revise or delete the condition of approval previously applied to the site.
Public portion of the heating was opened. John Thomsen, applicant, spoke at
this time and said that after speaking with Marian Shaw and Jim Eggert. they
have come to the conclusion that he would be liable for ½ of the median and
Minutaa~ PC! Thumda¥! June ,17, t999
would be deferred until it was put in subject to paying their part up front. He
agrees to pay his ½ of the median but would like to defer the payment until it
goes in. He mentioned that Mesa Marie had just completed some major work out
there and they did not have to pay up front. He would like the same
consideration.
No one elsa spoke for or against the project. Public portion of the headng
closed.
Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if she had a response to that? Ms. Shaw
said that the City's standard requirement for landscape medians is to require
either the construction of the landscape median with the development or
payment of the land,cape median fee which is $30 a linear foot for ½ of the
landscape median. That is what the city would require on this general plan
amendment/zone change or any subsaClUent site plan that came in. Its a
standard requirement that has been in place several yearn. The requirement for
inclusion in a maintenance dist~ct can only be impceed on a zone change or a
land subdivision.
Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if there was some reason Mess Madn was
treated differently? Ms. Shaw said that it was a site plan, not a zone change or
subdivision.
Commissioner Boyle asked MI. Shaw what the difference would be in having
them pay it before it wsa boilt-or hevlng them po~ e bond for it? IVb. Shaweaid
that when a bond is posted there is usually a time limit associated with it that
stlrt~ with an agrsamant.
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commi~ioner McGinnm, to
adopt a resolution denying the requsstad General Plan Amendment based on
with the change in the third line flora theend to mid 'subject to an agreement
with the City for the payment of eppropdate fees and/or bonding ssttsfectofy to
the Public Works Department, to ensure future installation end maintenance
thereof.* Motion camed by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissionem Boyfe, Brady, Ohanans, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague
Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to
adopt a resolution denying the requested Zone Change bssed on findings
prsaented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit F-2) and recommend the same
to City Council and approving the resolution attached as Exhibit "B" with the
change in the third line from the end to read 'subject to an agreement w~ the. ~.~4~,e
City for the payment of appropnate fees and/or bonding satisfactory to the,Pul~rc '~,~
Works ~ to ensure future ir~Miation and maintenance thereof, i~_- ~
Motion carried by the following roll cad vote: ¥~
Minutes, PC~ Thumday! June 17, 19gg
Page
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Tkac
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague
5.5) General Plan Amendment P99-002~. City of Balmmlleld (Ward 4)
Staff report recommending approval was given. Stanley Grady pointed out to the
Commissioners that they were given a memo with attached correspondence that
was received after the Planning Commi~ion pacbete were delivered and a
memo re~oonding to a Commissione~ question from the pre-mesting regarding a
latter submitted by Ted James from Kern County Planning asking if we were
,the.mtmiat in our jurisdiciion even thoug~ it is beeme~
. the County. Mr. Gredy mad that Mc, Nliat~ Ranch wes edol;~ed by
'on November 15, 1993, and the edo~d Circulation plan doe~ not
the further extension of Pacbeco Road as an attmiat or any other
map designation. Instead, two east/west ertmteis are shown - one-
and one-half mile south of Pacheco both intemeotfng with the east
There were maps attached to the memo showing the
It appeared that should Allen Road be improved as an
way north past White Lane, Ming Avenue and on through
an alternate access to similar cabecity through arterial
The specific plan circulation map also shows the
futur~ E
Pacheco Road.
Clrcula~oh Plan and the deleting of'
Public Ix~on
of the project.
was opened. No one apoke in oppoaition or in favor
and bottle necking
the way to Buena Vista Road. He
in the future it will caues ~
his concern is vacating existing right-of-way
'owne the property west of the railroad all..
I that aa that pmberty is being developed
way I:~K~esn Hams Road and the railroad
road that close to the railroad crossing
~ the road should be realigned at ~
crossing. It is too f~r between collectom.
Reducing Pecheco to a two lane
Commissioner Brady
away from the railroad
Commissioner Dhanena asked Me. Shaw
designated Pacheco Road as a
half mile bordering their project? Ma. Shaw stated
Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw what the r~ght-of-way
Shaw statad that a modifmct collector ha~ · 60 foot t
accommodate four lanes of traffic but no parting.
~e on~.
Ht~t ia ai~iete~s~ ~,
Dhanens ~ cF
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO:
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk
County of Kern
1115 Trnxton Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
FROM: City of Bakersfield
Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Project Title: Concurrent General Plan Amendmem and Zone Chanlte Case P99-0234
Project Location-Specific: Southeast of the intersection of State Hiehwav 178 and Kern Canvon Road (State 184)
Project Location-City: Bakersfield Project Location-County: Kcrla
Description of Project: A reauest to amend Condition No. 34 of General Plan Amendment Case 1-94. Semnem III and Zone Chal~ne
Ca~e 5546 by deletion the reeuirement for a landscaned median in Kern Canyon Road (State Route 184L
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Bakersfield
Name of Person or Agency CarDing Out Project: John Thomsen. oroiect anulicant
Exempt Status:
Ministerial (Sec.21080(b)(l); 15268));
Declared Emergency (Sec.21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number.
Statutory Exemptions. State section number.
Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to (State section number and type). Sec 15061Co)(3'~ of CEOA Guidelines
(General Rulel
Reasons why project is exempt: There is no nossibilitv that am~roval of the deletion of a odor condition of aooroval reouirine the
inulusion of a landaeal:~d arterial street median could have an adverse imoact on the environment.
Lead Agency: Contact Person: Mike McCabe
Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (661) 326-3733
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?
Yes No
x Signed b3~ Lead Agency
Signed by Applicant
Date received for filing at OPR:
s:gpa-june\O234\noe
Title:~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1352 West Olive Avenue
Post Office Box 12616
Fresno, California 93778
(209) 488-7397
TDD: (209) 488-4066
FAX: (209) 488-4088
CITY OF ~3AKERSFIELD
PLANNIN~ ~ qTMENT
July 9, 1999
2132-IGR/CEQA
6-KER- 184-12.080
GPA/ZC P99-0234
REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITION 34 OF GPA 1-94,
SEGMENT IX[ AND ZONE CHANGE CASE 5546
BY JOHN THOMSEN
Ms. Pamela A. McCarthy, CMC
Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxton Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Ms. McCarthy:
Thank you for the Notice for the Public Hearing and Proposed Negative Declaration for a request to delete
Condition No. 34 of GPA 1-94, Segment III and Zone Change Case 5546. The request proposes to delete the
requirement for a landscaped median in Kern Canyon Road (State Route 184). Before Caltrans can comment
regarding the proposed negative exemption we will need additional information:
1. There must have been a justification by the City of Bakersfield for requiring a landscaped median.
2. If there is justification, can the City then justify the General Rule (CEQA §15061[b][3]) to exempt the
landscaped median?
3. Finally, is the entire median no longer being required; or, just the requirement to landscape the median?
Earlier comments by Caltrans for this project still apply:
The median is a traffic control design. Ordinance No. 3595, Condition No. 34 requiring a full median island
is to restrict left-turn movements across State Route 184. While Caltrans does not specifically require that
the median be landscaped, this Condition is still valid to control traffic movements. The median shall be
constructed with the first development with the GC area;
· Previous comments by Caltrans are still germain;
· The encroachment permit must be obtained from this Agency for all work within the State r/w. Metric
dimensioned Engineering drawings of all work are to be submitted with the application. Work planned
within the State r/w will be performed to State standards and specifications at no cost to the State.
If you have any questions regarding traffic operations you may wish to contact Roger D. Barnes at (559) 445-
2514. I can be reached at (559) 488-7397 for any information concerning this review.
Sincerely,
Office of Transportation Planning
Email: David_Berggren @ dot.ca.gov
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
County of Kern )
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield;
and that on the 26th day of Auqust , 1999 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City
Hall, a full, true and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3921 , passed by the
Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 25th day of Auqust 1999 , and
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING CONDITION NO. 34 OF ORDINANCE NO.
3803 PERTAINING TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPED MEDIAN
IMPROVEMENTS IN KERN CANYON ROAD SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE
178 IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (ZONE CHANGE P99-0234)
Is/PAMELA A. McCARTHY
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
By: · ~ -~
DEPUTY City Clerk
S:\DOCU MENT~AOPOSTING
August 26, 1999