HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 174-87RESOLUTION NO. 174-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE CIRCULATION COMPONENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
ELEMENT OF THE BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield referred
a proposed amendment to the Circulation Component of the
Redevelopment Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakers-
field, in compliance with Section 65351 of the Government Code,
held a public hearing on July 16, 1987, on the proposed amendment
to the Circulation Component of the Redevelopment Element of the
General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been
given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by pub-
lication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of
general circulation; and
WHEREAS, such proposed amendment to the Circulation
Component of the Redevelopment Element of the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan is as follows:
The CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOP-
MENT DEPARTMENT has applied to amend the
Circulation Component of the Redevelopment
Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan by deleting the major
collector designation of "M" Street, south
of Truxtun Avenue, and subsequent street
closing of "M" Street between Truxtun Avenue
and the A.T.&S.F. railroad tracks;
and
WHEREAS, for the above-described amendment, an Initial
Study was conducted, and it was determined that, the proposed pro-
ject would not have a significant effect on tlhe environment, and a
Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the prepar-
ation and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA
and City of Bakersfield Resolution 107-86 haw~ been duly followed
by the City staff and the Planning Commissionl;
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 32-87 on July 16, 1987, the
Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of this
amendment by this Council and this Council has fully considered
the findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in
compliance with Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted
and held a public hearing on September 16, ]_987, on the above-
described proposed amendment, 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
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.
2. The Negative Declaration for the project is hereby
approved and adopted.
3. 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.
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the pro-
posed amendment to the Circulation Component .of the Redevelopment
Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
.......... o0o ..........
- 2 -
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 September 16, 1987 , by
the following vote: -
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: CHILDS, CHRISTENSEN, SMIT~{, RA'FI'Y, MOORE, DICKERSONi SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUI'~CILM~M~ERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of t~
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED September 16, 1987
MAYOR of the City/of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
AJS/meg
R RES 5
CIR.COMP1
- 3 -
I J CITY of BAKERSFIELD
DISTRICT
TRUXTUN AVE.
1 Proposed Amendment to the
KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Circulation Component of the
BUILDING SITE, INCLUDING PARKING Downtown Redevelopment
Element,Bakersfield General
Plan
2 Location: 'M" Street from
Truxtun Avenue to California
Avenue
SANTA Iq~__~ OF WAY 3 Amendment to the Circulation
~u ~u Redevelopment Element,
~ ~_ Bakersfield General Plan
~ ~ (To eliminate the Major
! ~ z Collector - Street Classification
14Ih STREET for ~" Street from Truxtun
Avenue to California Avenue)
I
CALIFORNIA AVE.
I I I [ JUNE 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 32-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS,
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION COMPONENT OF
THE REDEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE
BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL
PLAN, AND TRANSMITTING REPORT TO CITY
COUNCIL).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of
Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65351
of the Government Code, held a public hearing on JULY 16, 1987,
to consider proposed amendment to the Circulation Component of
the Redevelopment Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been
given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by pub-
lication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of
general circulation;
and
WHEREAS, proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Element
of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is described as
follows:
The City of Bakersfield Economic
Development Department has applied to amend
the circulation component of the
Redevelopment Element of the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan by deleting
the major collector designation of "M"
Street south of Truxtun Avenue, and subse-
quent street closing of "M" Street between
Truxtun Avenue and the A.T.So&F. railroad
tracks.
WHEREAS, for the above described amendment, an Initial
Study was conducted and it was determined that the proposed pro-
ject would not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration was prepared;
and
WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to the prepa-
ration and adoption of Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA
and City of Bakersfield Resolution 107-86 have been duly followed
by the City staff and the Planning Commission;
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Legal public notices have been given.
2. The provisions of CEQA have been followed.
A Negative Declaration was posted on July 2, 1987
and advertised on July 4, 1987 in the Bakersfield
Californian.
Deletion of the Redevelopment Element major
collector designation of "M" Street, south of
Truxtun Avenue, would facilitate location and devel-
opment of the proposed Kern County Administration
Building.
The estimated traffic volume could be serviced
by other adjacent major collector and arterial
streets.
The maps and all papers relevant thereto, constitut-
ing the report of the Planning Commission shall be
transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission
to the City Council for such action as the Council
shall determine.
On a motion by Commissioner Patrick and seconded by
Commissioner Jarrett, Commission approved the Negative
Declaration and the Amendment to the Circulation Component of
the Redevelopment Element deleting the major collector designa-
tion on "M" Street, south of Truxtun Avenue and recommended same
to the City Council by the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Gronbeck, Jarrett, Patrick,
Weaver
NOES: Commissioners Cohn, Milazzo
ABSENT: None
-3-
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of July, 1987.
DATED: July 16, 1987
~r/rmsH~ ~
ry
PLANNING COMMISSION OF
SUSAN WEAVER, Chairman
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JULY 16, 1987
AGENDA ITEM #
Proposed amendment to the Circulation Component of the Redevelopment
Element Bakersfield[ General Plan to remove the major collector street
classification of "M" Street from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is to amend the Circulation Component of the
Redevelopment Element of the Bakersfield General Plan by eliminating
the major collectoz' classification from "M" Street between Truxtun
Avenue and California Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTliNG
The general area surrounding "M" Street contains the Kern County
Justice complex, adjacent professional offices, numerous single family
with some multiple family residential dwellings and a few low density
commercial retail structures.
The portion of "M" Street being amended is from Truxtun Avenue to
California Avenue, a distance of 1670 feet. "M" Street is 82' wide
and currently carries two traffic lanes. According to the
Redevelopment Element, "M" Street could ultimately provide six traffic
lanes. With the elimination of "M" Street as the major collector, a
new emphasis is placed on "N" Street between Truxtun and California
Avenue. "N" Street is also recommended to receive an interchange rel-
ative to the 178 Freeway study. It would be the new entrance way to
downtown. Reclassification of "N" Street to a major collector status,
between California and Truxtun Avenue and possibly Truxtun to Golden
State, is under further evaluation by the City Traffic Engineer.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The County of Kern has selected a site for constructing the County
Administration Building. As a part of the County's request to close
"M' Street, a General Plan amendment to the Redevelopment Element must
be performed. The policy in the element encourages growth and devel-
opment of governmental agencies in the project area.
The Kern County Administration Building is located south of Truxtun
Avenue and north of 16th Street between "M" Street and "N" Street.
Proposed is a five level, 225,000 square foot structure. Employee and
public parking will be provided in a 800-1,200 space parking structure
between 16th Street and the railroad tracks. Major north, south
routes to the project area are "N" Street and "L" Street. Truxtun
Avenue provides major east-west access.
Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 1988.
FINDINGS
1. Legal public notices have been given.
2. The provisions ,of CEQA have followed.
3. A Negative Declaration was posted on July 2, 1987 and advertised
on July 4, 1987 in Bakersfield Californian.
4. That deletion of the Redevelopment Element major collector desig-
nation of "M" Street, south of Truxtun Avenue would facilitate
location and development of the proposed Kern County
Administration Building.
5. That the estimated traffic volume could be serviced by other adja-
cent major collector and arterial streets.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion to adopt resolution making findings, approving the Negative
Declaration and approving the amendment to the circulation component
of the Redevelopment element deleting the major collector designation
on "M" Street, south of Truxtun Avenue.
krs
Z:DB3
TRUXTUN AVE.
14th STREET
CAEIFORNIA AVE.
~ I
KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING SITE, INCLUDING PARKING
CITY of BAKERSFIELD
CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT
Proposed Amendment 1o the
Circulation Component ol the
Downtown Redevelopment
Plan
Location: 'M" Slreel from
Truxfun Avenue to California
Avenue
Amendment to the Circulation
Component ol the Downtown
Redevelopment Element,
Bakersfield General Plan
(To eliminate the Major
Collector - Streel Classification
for 'M~ Street from Truxtun
Avenue to California Avenue)
JUNE 1987
PROPOSED
'EGATIVE DECLARATION
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NO. 2387
Our File No. Closing
of "M" Street
1. Name and address of Sponsor(s) of Project:
City of Bakersfield
Economic Development
1415 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
2. Location of Project: Between Truxtun Avenue and the
A.T.S.&F. railroad tracks.
Description of Project as Proposed: Deleting the major
collector desiqnation on "M" Street south of Truxtun Avenue
and subsequent street closing of "M" Street.
4 o
The undersigned, having considered the matters provided in
City Council Resolution No. 107-86, City of Bakersfield does
hereby find and determine that the above described project
will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The Initial Study (refer to Appendices "H" and "I")
which comprises part of the Negative Declaration, may
be inspected at the Office of the Planning Director at
City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue; Bakersfield,
California. Any member of the public is invited to
provide comments on the proposed action, in writing,
on or before the 16th day of July, 1987, at the above
office. A public hearing for the proposed project
will be held before the Planning Commission of the
City of Bakersfield at 5 p.m., on the 16th
day of July, 1987, in the Council Chamber of City Hall
to receive input from the public on the proposed
Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
Dated:
p/ndms
July 3, 1987
Posted: July 3, 1987
J~CK ~ HARDI STY //
~Acting Planning ~Director
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION COMPONENT OF THE
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ELEMENT BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN
APPLICANT: County of Kern, Department of Public Works
LOCATION: "M" Street from Truxtun Avenue to California Avenue
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Reason for this application is to facilitate development of the
Kern County Administration Building. Request for the closure of "M"
Street from Truxtun Avenue to the Southern Pacific railroad tracks has
been submitted as a part of the project. Before this closure can be
approved the CircuLation Component of the Downtown Redevelopment
Element Bakersfield General Plan must be amended to eliminate the "M"
Street major collector street classification.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTLING:
The portion of "M" Street necessitating the amendment is from Truxtun
Avenue to California Avenue, a distance of approximately 1670 feet.
"M" Street is 82' %~ide and currently carries two lanes of traffic.
According to the Redevelopment Element, "M" Street could ultimately
provide six traffic lanes. By eliminating the major collector classi-
fication, increased traffic capacities would not be proposed in the
Circulation Component of the Redevelopment Element.
According to the Redevelopment Element, zoning of the affected por-
tion of "M" Street is Center District Government, with a Government
Center/Urban Commercial land use designation. Existing zoning adja-
cent to "M" Street include: C-C Civic Center, from Truxtun Avenue to
the railroad tracks; M-1 Light Manufacturing, from the tracks to 14th
Street; R-4 High Density Residential, from 14th Street to one-half
block north of California Avenue; and C-2 General Commercial, to
California Avenue.
The area surrounding "M" Street contains the Kern County Justice
complex, adjacent professional offices, numerous single family with
some multiple family residential units, and a few low-density commer-
cial retail structures.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The County of Kern has selected a site for the construction of the
County Administration Building. As a part of the County's request to
close "M" Street, a General Plan amendment to the Redevelopment
Element must be performed.
growth and development of
ject area.
The policy in the Element is to encourage
governmental agencies in the proposed pro-
The Kern County Administration Building is located south of Truxtun
Avenue and north of 16th Street between "M" Street and "N" Street.
Proposed is a five level, 225,000 square foot structure. Employee and
public parking will be provided in a 800-1,200 space parking structure
between 16th Street and the railroad tracks. Major north, south
routes to the project area are "N" Street and "L" Street. Truxtun
Avenue provides major east-west access.
Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 1988.
Z:DB1
II
APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(lb be completed by Lead Agency)
I BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Cotu~ty of Kern, De~t of Pt~Dlic ~)rk~
Address and Phone Number of Proponent: L. D~e iV~tlls
Kern County Director of P~l~W~r~
1600 Norris Road, Bakersfield, ~A q~08
3. Date of Checklist. Submittal: Jt~ly 3, 1987
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Bakersfield, Rl~in~ Depar~m~mt
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ~nenclm~_nt to the CirctfLation c~nqoonent of
the Downtc~n P~=develol~t El~ne~nt, Ba]<ersfield C~_neral Plan (to elJm~nate t_he
b~]or Co±lector-Street Classification for "M" Street from Tn~w~ Av~n~ t~
C~11forn~a Avenue).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
X
X
X
X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion, or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or
the bed of the ocean or any Pay, inlet
or lake?
X
Earth (continued)
YES
MATBE
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudsliOes, ground failure,
or similar hazards
2. Air Will the proposai~ result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
amDient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Water Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either marine
or fresh water?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
9. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either tnrouoh direct addlitions or withdrawals,
or through i~terception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for puOlic water
supplies?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3. Water (continued)
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
j. Will the proposa' result in water service
from any public or private entity?
4. Plant Life Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops,. microflora and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
5. Animal Life Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species or
numbers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish,
benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movemen'~ of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wild-
life habitat?
6. Noise Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure or people to severe noise levels?
YES
MAYBE
I-3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10.
11.
12.
13.
Light and Glare Will the proposal ~roduce
new light or glare?
Land Use Will the proposal result in a
substa~ial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources W:ll the proposal result in:
a. Increases in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
Risk of Upset Does the proposal involve a risk
of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Population Will the proposal alter the location,
dis~r~oution, density or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
Housing Will the proposal affect existing
rousing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
Transportation/Circulation Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new pa'-king?
c. Substantial impapt upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circu-
lation or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrains?
YES
x
x
x
MAYBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14. Public Services Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
!5. Energy Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
i7. Human Health Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
YES MAYBE
I-5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~Design of County Afmuinistraticn
Building wilt. provide utility
system access for the project.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18.
19.
20.
Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view?
Recreation Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the Quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?.
Archeological/Historical Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant arch-
eological or historical site, structure, object
or building?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of' the environment, sub-
stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or re-
strict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or pre-
history?
(b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one of which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term ~mpacts will endure well
into the future).
(c) Does the project have impacts which are in-
dividually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate re-
sources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
(d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
YES
MAYBE
]-6
I-7
III.
IV.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
DETERMINATION
(7o be completed by the Lead A9ency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Date
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because revisions in the project plans or proposals made by
or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration
is released for public review (or conditions of project approval) would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence
before the city that the project as revised (or conditioned) may have a
significant effect on the environment and that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a sig~icant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO~/q
y' (Si~a~ure)
F~r Development Set_vices
AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION COMPONENT OF THE
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ELEMENT BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN
(TO ELIMINATE THE MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET CLASSIFICATION FOR "M"
STREET FROM TRUXTUN AVENUE TO CALIFORNIA AVENUE).
Appendix I - Environmental Checklist Form Explanations of
Environmental Impacts.
Land Use - yes
The Redevelopment Element classifies "M" Street as a major
collector capable of providing six traffic lanes or four traffic
lanes with on-street parking. Adoption of this proposal will
eliminate the classification on "M" Street from Truxtun Avenue
to california Avenue.
As adopted in the Redevelopment Element, "M" Street was to be
improved in a manner to adequately serve the so'~theast quadrant
of the downtown area. Proposed land uses in the quadrant are
anticipated as very intense office - professional development.
Should the proposed amendment be approved, an alternate
north/south route would be selected to the satisfaction of the
City Traffic Engineer.
The new land use for the portion of "M" Street from Truxtun
Avenue to the railroad tracks will be a part of the Kern County
Administration Building project site.
13.
Maybe.
On-street parking along "M" Street will be eliminated; however,
development of the County Administration Building will include a
parking structure that will provide parking spaces. Some public
parking will be available in the structure.
13c & d. Yes.
"M" Street is designated as a major collector in the Downtown
Redevelopment Element.
Alternate routes will be provided to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. "~4" Street, from Truxtun Avenue to the tracks, will be
closed if this General Plan Amendment is approved.
Most likely alternate routes will be available on "N" Street, "L"
Street, and "Q" Street.
13f.
Maybe.
By alterating circulation patterns
potential traffic hazards to motor
trians due to the initial change.
there may be an increase in
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedes-
14.
14f.
Public Services
Maybe.
This amendment is to facilitate the Kern County Administration
building which provides various government services.
krs
Z:DB2
17th
STREET
TRUXTUN ~- AVENUE
I
82.5'
82_.5'
SCALE:
COUNTY C I V I C
I~th a STREET
VACATING "M" STREET AND 16th STREET ADJACENT TO
BLOCKS 310 AND 529, THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 310
AND THE PUBliC UTILITY EASEMENT IN BLOCK 329.
"~'°'" ,. CITY OF BAKERSFIELJ3 D.~-. 3-~-~z
K{~N ~U~, ~I~NIA ENGINEERING DEPAR~ENT ~cxzo
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
Parks & Environmental Quality
Committee Report
August 6, 1987
Proposed closure of "M" Street and adjacent alleys bet-
ween Truxtun Avenue and 16th Street and possible pedes-
trian access across the A.T.S.&F. Railroad tracks.
On July 21, 1987, this committee met with Alan Choy,
Kern County Public Works Department and City staff to discuss the
above-mentioned subject.
Alan Choy stated the County wanted assurance the street
would be closed when construction starts in spring of 1989.
Completion of the proposed project would be in summer of 1991.
Art Hartenberger, Economic Development, discussed the
relationship of the Redevelopment Element policies, major devel-
opment projects, parking, traffic and pedestrian circulation.
If "M" Street were to be closed, "L" and "N" Streets would be
the main north-south collectors. "N" Street would be the desig-
nated interchange for the proposed Highway 178 southern align-
ment alternative. Pedestrian access across the railroad tracks
should be addressed with any future separation of grade plans on
"N" Street. At this time there does not seem to be a need for a
pedestrian crossing at "M" Street.
Parks & Environmental Quality
Committee Report
Page 2
SUGGESTED ACTION: (underline indicates change)
A motion pursuant to Government Code ~ 65402 to find the
vacating of "M" Street and 16th Street adjacent to Blocks 310 and
329, the alley in Block 310 and the Public Utility Easement in
Block 329 is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Bakersfield and report the same to the City Council with the fol-
lowing recommendations:
Adequate easements to be reserved for public utilities,
sewers, storm drains or any other remaining and relocated
public facilities within the area to be vacated.
2. File parcel map waiver to eliminate all interior lot
lines.
Street improvements (curb and gutter, sidewalk and
paving) to be constructed to City standards a].ong limits
of vacated area.
Subject area shall be officially vacated and abandoned
for public street purposes upon recordation of a
Resolution ordering vacation in the Office of the Kern
County Recorder at the time the County of Kern has taken
possession of all properties within proposed County
Administration Building project site.
Respectively submitted,
Barbara Patrick, Chairman
p/peq