HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 4102ORDINANCE NO. 4 ]. 0 2
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND AMENDING SECTION 17.06.020 (ZONE MAP NO. 123-26)
OF TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-1 (ONE-FAMILY
DWELLING) TO C-2/PCD (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL/
PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) COMBINING ZONE
ON 8.92 ACRES GENERALLYLOCATED ALONG THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STINE ROAD AND PANAMA LANE
(FILE # P01-0756)
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 petition to change the land use zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
generally located along the southeast corner of Stine Road and Panama Lane; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 128-02 on October 3, 2002, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code
to approve Zone Change P01-0756 as delineated on attached Zoning Map No. 123-26 marked
Exhibit "2", by this Council and this Council has fully considered the recommendations made by
the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, as a result of said hearing, did make several
general and specific findings of fact which warranted a negative declaration of environmental
impact and changes in zoning of the subject property from R-1 to C-2/PCD combining zone and
the Council has considered said findings and all appear to be true and correct; 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, Planning Commission and this Council; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised and posted on August 28,
2002, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the general plan designation for this area allows LR (Low Density
Residential), HMR (High Medium Density Residential) and GC (General Commercial)
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved.
Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the
proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in accordance with
CEQA.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mitigation was incorporated into the project to reduce impacts (Exhibit "1").
The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses.
The proposed project is consistent with thb Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010
General Plan.
A traffic study was required for the project and mitigation measures were
recommended to alleviate traffic impacts.
The public necessity justifies the amendment to Zoning Map No. 123-26 (Exhibit
"2") incorporated within.
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
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-reference absence of evidence in the record and the Lead Agency.
NOW,
follows:
1.
2.
3.
SECTION 1.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as
All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct.
The Negative Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
be and the same is hereby amended by changing the land use zoning of that
certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property is shown on
Zoning Map. No. 123-26 marked Exhibit "2" attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and are more specifically described in attached Exhibit "3 ".
Such zone change is hereby made subject to the Mitigation Measures/Conditions
of Approval listed ~n attached Exh'b't "1 ", subject to approval of GPA P01-0756.
SECTION 2.
This ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and
shall become effective not less than thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
2
..... o0o -
the
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted, by
Council of ~,¢~¢ City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
DEC 1 1 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
COUNCILMEMBER ~
COUNCILMEMBER ~
COUNCILMEMBER ~
PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CM~
CiTY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED DEC 1 1 ZOOZ
VICE MAYOI~ DAVID COUCH
APPROVED as to form
BART J. THILT/G)EN
City Attorn~//
By: )
S:~Dole\P01-0756\CC OZC,DOC
EXHIBIT "1"
MITIGATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE P01-0756
Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation Viii are required for all
construction in the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District as sufficient mitigation
to reduce PM-10 impacts to less than a significant level.
Comply with traffic study mitigation measures shown on Exhibit 1. All
regional traffic impacts caused by this development shall be mitigated
according to the regional impact fee ordinance at the time of issuance of
building permits. In addition, local ordinance requires all on site street
improvements and a proportional sham of boundary street improvements
be built by each development.
Comply with the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081
permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United State Fish and
Wildlife Services and California State Department of Fish and Game,
respectively.
If any human remains are discovered, all work shati stop until the Kern
County Coroner has been notified and has evaluated the remains. If any
other archaeological artifacts are discovered during site development, all
work shall stop until the find has been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist or historian.
EXHIBIT '1' MITI ,.A [
Table 6: lntersection lmprovements/Mitig, Pro-Rata Shsre - GPAtZC ~ Pename ~ne , )ed
Intersection/Mitigation :~ Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of Project's
@ Year 2020 Future Imprvm°t I Share of
Traffic + Mitig. Im plMitig
Project
PHV PHV %2 PHV (8)
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 5016 10 0.17% 6020 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
2 White Lane & Ashe Road
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 4922 18 0.31% 5783 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 30 (Existing LOS "D")
2020: Add EL, WL to maintain existing LOS "E" 6061 26 0.36% 7234 $160,000 $575
2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
4 White Lane & Wible Road
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 5659 12 0.17% 6963 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 30 (Existing LOS "D')
5 6iosford Road & Pacheco Road 7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 1570 17 0,71% 2390 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
6 Stine Road & Pacheco Road
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2857 35 0.97% 3591 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
7 Wible Road & Pacheco Road
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 3825 10 0.20% 4961 $0 S0
peak hour traffic is less than 20 (Existing LOS "E")
8 Gosford Road & Harris Road 7
Existing; No improvements required, Existing LOS "C"
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1.2, & 11
Not analyzed beyond existing since prolect added 1551 29 1 51% 1919 S0 SO
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS
9 Ashe Road & Herds Road
Existing: LOS "F"
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1, 2, & 11
2020: Provide Traffic Signal for LOS "D' 1758 32 1.15% 2791 $120,000 $1,376
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 2020 56 2.32% 2409 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 1931 12 0.44% 2701 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C')
Ju~e 2002
2037ts01.xls:Pro-Rata Share-Miflg
EXHIBIT'1' MITIGATION
/.~ne -'/ne ~o~d
Table 6: Intersection Improveme~t;*'""~#ml/Pio.Rata Sha~e- GPA/ZC Q Panama
Intersection/Mitigation ~ Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of Project's
~Year2020 Future Imprvm't ! Share of
Traffic + Mitig. ImplMItig
Project
PHV PHV % 2 PHV (8)
12 Panama Lane & Old River Road 4. ?
Existing: No improvements required. Existing LOS "B"
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 416 8 0.63% 760 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS
13 ~anama Lane & Gosford Road 7
Existing: No improvements required, Existing LOS "C"
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1 & 11
2020: Provide Traffic Signal ? 1250 46 2.39% 1927 07 $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1,2, & 11
2020 + Proj: No additiooal mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
14 > · ,
Existing Signal Wan'ants Satisfied: NONE
2020: No improvements required to maintain existing Service levels 990 83 3.61% 1747 07 $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2 & 11
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required to maintain existing service levels
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2 & 11
15 'nnnma Lane & Ashe Road ~
Existing: LOS "F"
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 2, 0, & 11
2020: No improvements required to maintain existing LOS "F" 1512 104 3.61% 2880 07 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
16 Panama Lane & Stine Road 7
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 2136 341 9.01% 3785
2020 + Proj: Add NR $10,000 $901
17 Panama Lane & Akers Road
2020: Add WL & WR 2112 137 3.94% 3474 $50,000 $1,972
2020 + Proj: No additioaa[ mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
~18 ~
2020: Add EL. ET. WL, WT. & ST to maintain existing LOS 'D" 3542 102 1.64% 6232 $25,000 $409
2020 + Proj: No additional mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
19 Panama Lane & SB 99 Rem~s AM Peak
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2699 23 0.57% 4004 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS 'B")
20 Panama Lane & SB 99 Ramos PM Peak
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 2620 71 1.84% 3866 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
21 Panama Lane & NB 99 Ramos AM Peak
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2908 17 0.38% 4506 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS 'A')
22 3ananna Lane & NB ~9 I:~mos PM Peak
2020: No Improvements required for Futars 2020 traffic incrsases 2466 52 1.32% 3953 $0 $0
2020 + ProJ: No mlflga~,3a required due to addi~m of project traffic
June 2002 2037ts01.xts:Pro-Rata Share-M/rig ~ Page ~14
.~ ! :~ !l,; ~
EXHIBIT'1' MITIGATION nt.)
Table 6: Intersection Improvement~lt~'~etlon/Pro-Rata Share - GPA/ZC ~ Panama Lane lee Roa¢~
Intersection/Mitigation 3 Exist Project Traffic Year 2020 Cost of Project's
@ Year 2020 Future Imprvm't / Share of
Traffic + Mitig. Imp/Mitig
Project
PHV PHV % 2 PHV (8)
23 Panama Lane & South "H" Street
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 2201 31 0.86% 3597 $0 0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Exisling LOS "C")
24 Panama Lane & Union Avenue 7
Not analyzed beyond existing since projecl added 1676 10 0.40% 2515 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
25 Stine Road & Berkshire Road 4.7
2020: No improvements required for Future 2020 traffic increases 593 55 4.30% 982 $0 $0
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required due to addition of project traffic
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
26 Wible Road & Berkshire Road
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 859 10 0.49% 2045 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS 'C")
25 Gosford Road & McCutchen Road 4.7
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE 441 5 0.39% 698 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS
26 Stine Road & Hoskine Avenue 4, ?
2020: No improvements required for LOS 'C" 709 43 3.36% 1101 $0 $0
Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1, 2 & 11 (with existing laneage)
2020 + Proj: No mitigation required for LOS "C"
27 Wible Road & Hos_kj_na Avenue 7
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: 1 (with existing laneage) 933 16 1.00% 1593 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existin9 LOS "B"}
28 Stine Road &_~M¢_K¢¢j~O~_47
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE 275 31 2.42% 437 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS 'A")
29 Wible Road & McKee Road
Existing Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE 477 12 0.94% 1168 $0 $0
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
30 Taft Hwv & Ashe Road - AM Peak 4. ?
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 693 3 0.23% 884 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 50 (Existing LOS "B")
31 Taft Hwv & Ashe Road - PM Peak 4.7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 979 10 0.78% 1225 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
June 2002
2037ts01.xls:prc-Rata Share-Mitig
Page
FXHIBIT "1' MITIGATION (Cont..)
Table 6: Intersection ImprovementM~M'i~t#on/Pm-Rata Share. GPAfZC Q Panama Lane & .e~e i~oao
Inter~..~(ion/Mitlgation = Exist , ,aJect Traffic Year 2020: Cost of Project's
@ Year 2020 Future Imprvm't I Share of
Traffic + Mitig. ImplMitig
Project
PHV PHV %2 PHV (8)
32 Taft Hwv & Stthe Road - AM Peak 4,7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 985 8 0.50% 1256 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS "C")
Signal Warrants Satisfied: NONE
33 T~ff Hwv & Stine Road - PM Peak 4,7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 944 22 1.38% 1183 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 40 (Existing LOS 'C")
Signal Wan'ants Satisfied: NONE
34 Taft Hwv & Wible Read - PM Peak 4,7
Not analyzed beyond existing since project added 1164 14 0.88% 1479 $0 $0
peak hour traffic is less than 30 (Existing LOS 'D#)
Signal Warrants Safisfied: NONE
PHV = Peak Hour Volume
Not used
Project percentage of future traffic is shown in this column regardless of miUgation 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 1 lane
Approaches, and 1600vph for 2 lane by 2 lane Approaches).
Project created intersection. Developer shall be responsible for ail improvement costs related to this intersection.
Costs for improvements are based on following estimates for specific improvements:
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (undeveloped area): $40,000
Add through or left turn lane, paved w/transition (developed area): $80,000
Add dght turn lane, paved: $10,000
Add any lane, sthping change only: $5,000
thlprovereents to this intersection are included in the Phase II Metropolitan Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Fee
Program and therefore paid for by project's contribution to that fee program.
Project's Pro-Rata Share Cost Summary
Total Cost of Improvements
Projects Pro-Rata Share
Phase II - Transportation Impact Fee (See Table 10)
$365,000
Total Traffic Impact Fees
$5,233
$145,103
$150,336
Per Square Foot Cost (97,030 sf)
Per ADT Cost (4,340 AD'F)
$I .55 per sf
$34.64 per ADT
June 2002
20371s01.x~s:Pro-Rata Share-MitJg
Page 16 ~
oooo ooo oooo oo oo oooooo ooo ]~ ~
~>
A~oa
oooo ooo o~oo oooooooooo oooi~
o o ~3 ~
o~oo ooo oooo oooooo~_oo ooo~_~i~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~:~
oooo o~o o~oo ~ oo ~ ooo ~
0
~o ...... ~0 0~o O0 ~ 9~YY~P 09? ~ ~
~<
z
ORIGII~AL
EXHIBIT "3"
ZONE CHANGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED C-2 ZONE (FROM R-l)
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, MD.M,
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 AS MARKED BY A
KERN COUNTY SURVEYOR'S CONCRETE MONUMENT AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO.
7653 FILED JULY 1, 1985 IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 32 AT PAGE 49 IN THE OFFICE OF THE
KERN COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE S.00°34'22"W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SECTION 26, ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF STINE ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 658.87
FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAiD WEST LINE, S.89°08'29"E., 55.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N.01°26'27"E., 269.18 FEET; THENCE N.05°20'11"E., 120.42 FEET;
THENCE N.00°34'22"E., 179.51 FEET; THENCE N.45°42'43"E., 42.53 FEET; THENCE
S.89°08'56"E., 289.56 FEET; THENCE N.89°58'59"E., 322.26 FEET TO THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 4930-UNIT A AS FILED NOVEMBER 11, 1986 IN MAP BOOK 35
AT PAGES 119 AND 120 IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUN~ RECORDER; THENCE
S.00°34'55"W. ALONG SAID WEST BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 603.84 FEET TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE N.89°08'29"W. ALONG SAID SOUTH
LINE A DISTANCE 655.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 8.92 ACRES.
2002-037\LEGALS\C2ZONE.DOC~JFK~AUG. 14, 2002
LAND SURVEYING · CIVIL ENGINEERING
PLANNING · LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
661-834-4814 · Fax 834-0972
2001 Wheelan Court- Bakersfield, CA 93309