HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 04-90RESOLUTION NO. 4-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS,
PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ADOPTION OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 2010 GENERAL
PLAN AND TRANSMITTING REPORT TO THE
KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of
Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65351
of the Government Code, concluded its public hearings on October
24, 1989 to consider' the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan, and by Resolution No. 41-89 recommended adoption to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
is described as follows:
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
encompasses an area of 408 square miles in Kern
County, including the City of Bakersfield. The
plan is a policy document designed to give long-
range guidance to those making decisions
affecting the character and future land uses in
the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning area. It
represents the official statement of the
community's physical development as well as its
economic, social and environmental growth.
The Metropolitan 2010 General Plan gives an
overall statement of purpose and organization of
the document from which five separate objectives
can be delineated, they are as follows:
To conform with Section 65300 of the California
Planning and Zoning Law which requires cities
and counties to adopt a comprehensive, long-
term general plan for its development.
To provide guidelines for decisions affecting
the character and future land uses in the
plan area.
To provide an official statement of the
community's physical development as well as
its economic, social and environmental goals.
To clarify and articulate local government's
intention with respect to the rights and
expectations of the general public, property
owners and prospective investors and business
interests.
5. To communicate what is expected of the
private sector with respect to the plan; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
is a joint City of Bakersfield/County of Kern General Plan for
the Metropolitan Bakersfield area; and
WHEREAS, the Bakersfield City Council, in accordance
with the provisions .of Government Code Section 65351, held a
public hearings on December 14, December 27, 1989 and January 24,
1990 to consider the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Kern County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) has found the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan
to be consistent wit'h Airports Land Use Plan (ALUP), if the fol-
lowing changes are incorporated into the plan:
Existing land use or zoning in the area bounded by
Norris Road, North Chester Avenue, Airport Drive, and
Roberts Lane be established as the General Plan land
use density designation, rather than increasing the
intensity of residential use in this area.
Document should include strong policy statement to
maintain the protection provided by the Intensive
Agriculture designation at the north end of the
runways.
Goals and policies should be added to the document to
ensure that airports are protected from incompatible
land uses.
4. The Casa Loma Specific Plan should be reflected in
the 2010 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project in no way increases the
potential of the planned land use beyond that designated on the
County's current adopted Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, the area in question south of Meadows Field is
largely developed with a mixture of single-family residences and
apartments, a significant intensification of development is very
unlikely; and
WHEREAS, the area on the north end of Meadows Field's
runways is designated Intensive Agriculture and strong policy
exists within the text to protect all prime agricultural land
from conversion to urban development; and
WHEREAS, policy has been added to the text to protect
all the airports from incompatible land use development; and
WHEREAS, the Casa Loma Specific Plan was incorporated
as is into the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan; and
-2-
WHEREAS policies of the 2010 Plan are designed to con-
trol development incorporating the appropriate standards to
assure compliance with adopted noise standard; and
WHEREAS the plan recommended for approval by the City
Council incorporates responses to input received at public
hearings; and
WHEREAS for the above-described plan, an initial study
was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project
could have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
considered for certification by the Planning Commission and
Planning Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS by Resolution No. 42-69, on October 24, 1989,
the Planning Commission/Planning Advisory Committee recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS by Resolution No. 204-89, on December 14, 1989,
the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS the rules and regulations relating to the
preparation and adoption of Environmental Impact Reports as set
forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City
of Bakersfield Resolution 107-86 have been duly followed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City
of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. All required public notices have been given.
3. The proposed general plan adequately addresses Kern
County Airport Land Use Commission concerns.
4. Findings required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and displayed in Appendix A (attached) are
hereby incorporated by reference.
5. Specifically identified benefits of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan as a comprehensive planning
document outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. A statement
of overriding considerations as set forth in Appendix B (attached)
is hereby adopted as part of project approval.
-3-
6. The Draft Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan,
with proposed revisions as shown in the October 1989 version rec-
ommended by the Planning Commission and Planning Advisory
Committee and changes made by this Council in the course of the
public hearing on said Plan, as reflected in Appendix "C", and
mitigation measures as set forth in Appendix A (attached), is
hereby preliminarily approved, and shall be transmitted to the
Kern County Board of Supervisors.
7. Upon receipt of a response from Kern County, the
City Council will consider formal adoption of the plan.
.......... o0o ..........
- 4 -
i HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a Special
Meeting thereof held on JANUARY 24, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES; COiJNCILMEMBERS: EDWARDS, OeMOND. SMITH, BRUNNI, PETERSON, McDERMOTT, SALVASStO
NOES; COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS*
ABSTAIN: COUNCtLMEMBERS
AS S I STANT
CITY CLERK and Ex~iD~ficto Clerk of the
Council of the Ci[y of Bakersfield
APPROVED January 24, 1990
-\
~ARENCE E. MEDD~RS
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as
/
/
to form:
CITY ATT/.~Y/of ithe City of Bakersfield
pjt
r/r2010
-5-
APPENDIX A
IMPAClS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
The California Environmental Quality Act (Guideline Section 15091) requires that
no public agency approve a project for which an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects of the project unless the agency makes written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rational
for each finding. The possible findings are listed as follows:
Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Bo
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other consideration's make infeasible the miti-
gation measures or project's alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
In the following table, each environmental effect (impact) in need of mitigation
is listed, followed by the appropriate mitigation and a delineation of the find-
ing which applies (A, B, or C above). Following each impact is the page number
of the Final EIR where a full discussion of impact can be found. Mitigation
measures are numbered for reference purposes.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEASURES AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
IMPACTS MITIGATION FINDINGS
Biological Resources
Implementation of the
proposed General Plan
will extend urban devel-
opment into locations
where sensitive plants/
animals are known to
occur. (2-213)
1) The City and County will A
continue to develop and
implement the Habitat
Conservation Plan.
2) Consideration of using the A
Kern Water Bank for the
preservation of habitat
areas.
3) Restriction of access to A
habitat areas by creation
of a nature trail along the
Kern River.
Appendix; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 2
October 1989
IMPACTS MITIGATION FINDINGS
Agricultural Soils
Implementation of the pro-
posed General Plan will
result in the loss of
existing agricultural uses.
(2-245)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
g)
10)
Continually updating the
data base on the extent of
prime agricultural soils in
the planning area.
Designating prime agricul-
tural land categories and
zoning these areas for
agricultural usage.
Providing public information
on economic incentives avail-
able to aid in the preser-
vation of agricultural land.
The Land Use Map allows con-
version of agricultural land
to the extent that is incon-
sistent with goals, policies
and objectives of the Soils
and Agricultural Element.
The plan should be revised in
one of two ways as follows:
(a) All agricultural areas
should be designated R-IA, R-EA,
or (b) revise the language of
general plan such that pre-
servation of agricultural land
is not an overriding goal.
Consideration of the Soil
Conservation Service's classi-
fication system as a tool in
setting priorities for con-
serving farmland.
The plan should encourage the
infillin9 of the existing urban
area, include small parcels of
farmland that have become
surrounded by urban uses.
To reduce potential conflicts
with agricultural/urban uses,
Land Use should be modified to
permit extension of urban growth
to that involving contiguous
parcels.
A,C
Appendix; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 3
October 1989
IMPACTS
Agricultural Soils
(continued)
Air Quality
Implementation of the
General Plan will result
in an increase in popu-
lation/development. This
increase will have signi-
ficant adverse impacts on
air quality. (2-281)
Aesthetics
11)
12)
Development in accordance 19)
with General Plan will con-
vert open space to urban
uses for approximately 70
square miles in the plan
area. (2-294) 20)
MITIGATION
The consideration of an
ordinance establishing the
transference of development
rights and the establishment
of a means to purchase land
for a land trust, or other
methods of preservation.
Preparation of soils, erosion
and sedimentation report for
those areas identified as
highly erodible by Soils Con-
servation Service.
13) Implement the Transportation
System Management program for
Metropolitan Bakersfield.
14) Promote mixed land uses and
centers concept.
15) Disperse urban service centers.
16) Require dust abatement measures
during grading.
17) Promote Level of Service "C"
quality of traffic flow.
18) Promote logical growth patterns.
Adopt Hillside Management
Ordinance to regulate devel-
opment in the northeast
foothills.
Utilize redevelopment techniques
to assemble land parcels and
provide open space in the urban
area.
FINDINGS
A
A
A
A
A,C
A
A
A
A
A
21) Implement the Kern River Plan. A
Appendix; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 4
October 1989
IMPACTS
Aesthetics
(continued)
Geologic Hazards
Ultimate build-out of the
plan will expose additional
persons to groundshaking
hazards which exist region-
wide. (2-305
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
MITIGATION
30)
Consider water recharge area
for open space
Rezone abandoned landfill areas
and resource extraction sites
as open space or resource use.
Hillside ordinance to be pre-
dicated on acceptable densities
depending on the severity of
the slope.
Incorporate lands in the Habitat
Conservation Plan into the
planning areas open space network.
Investigate the feasibility
of scenic route designations
in the planning area.
Ensure projects along the
Kern River conduct a view-
shed analysis to mitigate
disruption of public views.
Establish an architectural
design review component in the
zoning ordinance or building
permit process.
The 2010 plan proposes 39
programs which protect the
general public from geologic
hazards.
Conduct geotechnical review
and/or literature review to
establish recency of the
Deepwell, Edison East, Edison
West, Elk Hills, Jasmine, Mr.
Poso, McVan, and Pleito Thurst
Fault. Data to be incorporated
into planning, zoning and site
plan review processes.
FINDINGS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Appendix; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page
October 1989
IMPACTS
Geologic Hazards
(continued)
Noise
Implementation of 201(} Plan
will result in a general
increase in noise levels.
(2-323)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
MITIGATION
Document areas subject to earth-
quake induced landslides may
pose a problem and include these
areas on the Geologic Hazards
Map.
Clarify whether the deve-
lopment and maintenance of
evacuation plans for
critical facilities is
required or merely encouraged
in damn inundation areas.
Conduct necessary subsurface
investigation and/or literature
review to more accurately
document areas where potential
liquefaction could occur.
Noise attenuation measures will
be required in subdivisions
where a significant noise impact
is projected to exist.
Noise attenuation measures along
state highways will be actively
pursued.
Noise attenuation measures along
rail lines will be pursued.
Exterior and interior noise
standard attainment will be
enforced for all new residential
development.
The city will consider noise
control and abatement.
Noise control measures will be
incorporated in conditions of
approval for commercial,
industrial and loud recreational
sources.
FINDINGS
A
A
A
A
A
A
Appendix; Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Required Findings Page 6
October 1989
IMPACTS
Noise
c-~--6-~inued)
Cultural and Historic:
Potential loss of cultural
and historic resources.
(2-46)
p/sr2010a
4O)
41)
MITIGATION
Noise performance standards will
be placed on commercial and
and industrial operations in
close proximity to residential
development.
Develop Historical Resources
Element for City of Bakersfield.
FINDINGS
A
A,C
APPENDIX B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan provides
comprehensive policies which assist in urban growth
management in the metropolitan area. The plan provides
for diverse housing opportunities, supportive infra-
structure, and conservation of local resources through
a cooperative p].anning effort between local agencies.
The balancing of community values which can occur under
the 2010 Plan as a comprehensive planning document out-
weigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
APPENDIX C
Bakersfield City Council recommended changes to the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan policy document and associated
maps.
POLICY DOCUMENT CHANGES
A. Circulation Element
: Delete the wording "...with volumes less than 80 percent of
capacity" from paragraph 2 under the heading of Collectors
on Page III-13.
: Change the last sentence in paragraph 2 under the heading
of Collectors on Page III-13 to read as follows:
On streets where the existing level of service
is below "C", special consideration to identify
mitigation measures to prevent and/or delay
degradation of the existing level of service
would be required.
: Change the wording of general policy #36 on Page III-19
following the phrase "...or when the existing level of
service is below "C", to read as follows:
...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 ~ysical changes for mitigation are
not possible due to existing development and/or
the mitigation measure is part of a larger
project, such as freeways, which will be built
at a later date.
B. Safety Element
: Delete general Policy #1 on Page VIII-35.
: Change general. Policy #2 on Page VIII-35 to read as
follows:
Establish and maintain standards with regard
Implementation item #3 on Page VIII-37 (I-l,
I-2, I-3).
to
: Renumber policies appropriately.
Appendix C
Page 2
: Change Implementation item #1 on Page VIII-37 to read as
follows:
City funding of Police and Fire operations and
maintenance costs will be provided through
City General Fund Tax Revenues.
: Change Implementation item #2 on Page VIII-37 to read as
follows:
Funding for Police and Fire equipment and
facilities will be facilitated through bond
issues and/or development fees and/or land
dedications and/or assessment districts.
ae
Be
Do
E. :
F. :
LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGES
(depicted on attached maps)
Change LR to GC for that property located at the southwest
corner of W~ite Lane and Old River Road, LR to GC for that
property located at the northeast corner of Pacheco and
Buena Vista, LR to HMR for that property on Pacheco east of
Buena Vista northeast of the P.G.&E. pipeline easement,
HMR to LR for the property on the northwest and southwest
corner of the easterly extension of an unnamed proposed
street and Old. River Road, LR to HMR for the triangular
property located on the west side of Old River Road at the
intersection of the Buena Vista canal, and LR to LMR on the
property at the southeast intersection of Mountain Vista
Drive and White Lane all as shown on the attached map.
Change the LR designation to GC at the northwest corner of
Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive south of the tower
lines and east. of the LI.
Change the D2 designation to LR south of 20th Street
to the alley, between "A" Street and "B" Street. Change D2
to HR for the area north of 18th Street to the alley north
of 19th Street, between "A" and "B" Streets. Change D2 to
HR for the area south of 20th Street to the alley, between
"B" Street and[ "C" Street and for the area south of 18th
Street to the alley, between "A" Street and "C" Street.
Change the GC designation to HMR south of Columbus Street
at its intersection with Wenatchee Avenue.
Change the SR to R-IA for the area located 1/4 mile north
of Rosedale Hwy., 1/2 mile west of Nord Road.
Change HR to OC for the lots adjacent to the south side of
Loustalot Lane, east and west of Haybert Court.
Appendix C
Page 3
Go :
Change HMR to GC for the area located at 12312 Main Street
(in Lamont). This area is located approximately 3/8 of a
mile north of Houghton Road, on the west side of Weedpatch
Highway.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
(depicted on attached map)
Remove collector designation for street shown east of Old
River Road, north of Camino Media.
r/2010ac
R-IA
v~OS-
P
LR
M,.. £ROPOLITAN BAKERSFIEL
2010 GENERAL PLAN
SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
I
PS LMR
_,,WHITE 1P
LR
R-IA ~r~ LR
R-IA
I-: LR
LR
R-IA
LR
HMR
LR
LR
LR ~
JGC
os_-1~
LR ' SI
LR
PANAMA
R-IA R-tA R-tA R-tA
SI
LANE
SI
OS-~
o
~. OS-P
0
LR
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
- 2010 GENERAL PLAN
. ,^ SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
:=- -~- ' ~ ~ - ~ I O
Z LR LR ~ ~ ~, LR I Gc~'
z~- - d L~~ ~ ~ ~l~~ ~,'~ · ~c-~,,
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFtEU~
2010 GENERAL PLAN
SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
215--I' S~'REET
LR LR LR D2
LR LR LR D2
]~ PS
20TH
D2
19TH
LR
LR
18TH
25
T29S, R27E
200
I
SCALE IN FEET
STREET
D2
STREET
?////////////J
7////D2 TO HR/4~
:~////////////J
STREET
///D2 TO HR
~////////////~
D2 D2
D2
D2
D2
D2
118909
GBADE J .LOOP_ ';~[.~,,,'~'~
METROPOLITAN BA_K~,.~S~IELD
~ ~ 2010 GENERAL P~m
[ ' ~ SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
~P
GC;
HMR i 03
LMR
HMR
SI
,, jij
o
~1.~
R-MP
R-IA
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
2010 GENERAL PLAN
SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
R-IA
~-IA
R-IA
P P P
R-IA
R-IA R-IA
R-IA
R-MP R-MP R-MP ~, R-IA R-IA R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-[A
R-IA
R-IA
R -iA
~E~
HI
R
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
ROSEDALE
i
R- IA [ ER
R-IA
R-MP
ER
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
~T(3~K F)AI F
I I
R-IA
RR
OS-P
HIGHW, .A..Y
ER
ER
R-IA
RdA
METROF'ULITAN BAKERSFIELD
2010 GENERAL PLAN
SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE
C-2
62
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD "-'^
2010 GENERAL PLAN ,~.
SUGGESTED LAND USE ELEMENT MAP CHANGE-=
IA
A
R-IA R-IA ' SR R-IA R-IA
R~ R~ R~
R~A
R-4A
R-IA
PANAMA
R-~A
R~A
R-IA
HOUGHTON
R-IA R-IA
R - IA R - IA
R-IA R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
SR ~-~ROAD
R-IA
R-IA
ROAD
R IA R _iA'X~
R-IA R-IA ~ :
R-IA R-IA I
R-~A
R - IA R -- IA
R- IA R - IA R- IA
R- IA R-IA R-IA
R- IA R- IA R- IA
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD -"
2010 GENERAL PLAN s~
SUGGESTED CIRCULATION ELEMENT MAP CHANGE:
R-IA
u~ M ALL_
LR~- 4 LR LR
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
K
REMOVE:
~,, COLLECTOR
PS