HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 218-06
RESOLUTION NO. 2 1 8 · 0 8
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DENYING THE
APPEAL AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 05-1783, AN AMENDMENT TO
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN,.
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
FAIRFAX ROAD, SOUTH OF REDBANK ROAD.
WHEREAS, Mcintosh and Associates for Fairfax Holdings L.P., filed an application
requesting a General Plan Amendment, change of zoning of that certain property within the City
of Bakersfield as hereinafter described; and
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, June 12,
2006 and Thursday, June 15, 2006 on General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783, 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 Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment 05-1783, an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, is as follows:
General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783:
Mcintosh and Associates for Fairfax Holdings L.P., applied to amend the Land Use Element
of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan consisting of a change from RR (Rural
Residential), SR (Suburban Residential), and ER (Estate Residential) to LR (Low Density
Residential) on 89.5 acres. The project site is located on the west side of Fairfax Road,
south of Redbank Road; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted for General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783 and it
was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment;
therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 113-06 on June 15, 2006, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783 subject to the
"Mitigation/Conditions of Approval" listed in Exhibit "A" and this Council has fully considered the
findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution and as restated herein;
and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Mr. Roger A. Mcintosh on the decision of the Planning
Commission; and
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,
August 16, 2006, on General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783, notice oftime and place ofthe 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
~ IQ~K~-2
o ~
>- -
m
l;:: r-
~ (:)
Page 1 c.0~GINAL
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct.
2. The Council has considered and concurs with the following findings made by the
Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. 113-06, adopted on June 15,
2006:
a. All required public notices have been provided.
b. The provisions of CEOA have been met.
c. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, staff has determined
that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the project in
accordance with CEOA.
d. The public necessity, general welfare and good planning practices justify the
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan.
e. The land use designation change from RR (Rural Residential), SR
(Suburban Residential), and ER (Estate Residential) to LR (Low Density
Residential) on 89.5 acres is compatible with the land use designations of
surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan.
f. The laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Negative Declarations as set forth in CEOA, the State CEOA Guidelines,
and the City of Bakersfield CEOA Implementation Procedures have been
duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission.
3. That the applicant by prior written agreement to comply with all adopted mitigation
measures contained within the Negative Declaration.
4. That the infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types of
density and intensity of the development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Planning Commission of the City
of Bakersfield as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein are true and correct.
2. The Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783 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 General Plan Amendment No. 05-
1783, constituting changes as shown on the map marked Exhibit "B", attached
hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located on~ <o"K~?>
o ~
> iii
I;::( l"-
V (:)
~INAL
Page 2 of 4 vn~
the west side of Fairfax Road, south of Redbank Road, subject to
"Mitigation/Conditions of Approval" listed in Exhibit "A."
5. Based on the absence of evidence in the record as required by Section 21082.2 of
the State of California Public Resources Code (CEOA) for the purposes 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 State of California Fish and Game Code.
Additionally the assumption of adverse effect is rebutted by the above-referenced
absence of evidence in the record and the lead agency's decision to prepare a
Negative Declaration for this project.
6. That General Plan Amendment No. 05-1783, approved herein, be combined with
other approved General Plan Amendment cases in this same cycle described in
separate resolutions, to form a single Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan.
7. The appeal is hereby denied.
---------()() ()--------
Page 3 of 4
X fQ~K~~
o ~
>- -
t;; 1J]
o ORIGINA~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted b'l the Council
of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held onAUG 1 6 ZUD6 by the
following vote: .
~ L---- ~ L-- ~ 1-----
~ COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
~ COUNCILMEMBER '
~~ COUNCILMEMBER ";)...... DQ...~
APPROVED
HAR E L. HALL
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ~;/;~ '7#t~
Exhibit A - Mitigation/Conditions of Approval
B - General Plan Amendment Map
JS - S:\GPA 2nd 2006\05-1783\Resolution\CC Resolution 05-1783.doc
Page 4 of 4
~ ~AI(~~
o (Jl
~ ,."
l- m
- ,...
OeRlelNAP
Exhibit A
Mitigation/Conditions of Approval
~ roAKS'~
o tJl
>- ~
I- m
- ,...
c) GRISINAt'
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-1783
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Air Qualitv Mitiaation Measures:
1. To ensure that project emissions are minimized, the applicant is proposing a number of mitigation
measures. The following measures have either been applied to the project through the latest
URBMMIS Model or will be implemented in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) rules. The applicant/developer of the project site shall submit
documentation to the Planning Department prior to development that they will/have met the
following air quality mitigation measures:
The project proponent proposes one, or any combination thereof, of the following mitigation measures
to achieve one ton on NOx reductions (at the project proponent's discretion):
· Construction of a new, warranted signal.
· Modification of an existing signalized intersection to add additional left turn storage or dedicated
right turn capability.
· Car crushing of older model cars.
· Modification to stationary diesel engines, such as for agricultural use.
· Modification of fleet vehicles and/or other mobile sources.
The following mitigation measures shall be utilized during the construction phase of the project to
reduce construction exhaust emissions:
· Water all unpaved or haul road surface as needed.
· Limit speed on all unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Water any exposed ground surface as needed.
· Stabilize all disturbed areas including inactive storage piles on an as needed basis.
· Maintain at least a 6 inch freeboard space during transport of materials and/or cover and wet to
limit dust emissions.
· Remove mud or dirt accumulations on public roadways immediately when track out exceeds 50
or more feet as well as at the end of the work day.
· Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will exceed the
SJVAPCD 20% opacity requirement.
· Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time.
· All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers' specification.
~ 'OA/(~~
Q <p
>- :!!
t:: f!!
OOR/G/NA{=>
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
GPAlZC 05-1783
Page 2 of 5
· Where possible electric equipment shall be used in lieu of diesel or gas powered equipment.
· Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well as during
established lunch hours. Mitigation for potentially significant Air Quality Impact.
Culturallmoact Mitiaation Measures:
2. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted for further evaluation. Mitigation for potentially significant cultural
resource impacts.
3. If human remains were discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease
pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are
identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County
Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions
necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified
immediately. Mitigation for potentially significant cultural resource impact.
Traffic and Circulation Imoact Mitiaation Measures:
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall pay the applicable Regional
Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) to the satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield Public Works
Department. Mitigation for potentially significant traffic impacts.
5. Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not paid for by the
RegionalTransportation Impact Fee nor include with normal development improvements) as
indicated in Tables 6 of the traffic study (Mcintosh and Associates, November 2005). An estimate
and fee schedule should be developed by the applicant and approved prior to recordation of a map
or issuance of a building permit. The recommended mitigations can be found in Table 1 and Table
2:
Table 1
Future Intersection Improvements
Install Si nal
Install Si nal
Install Si nal
Add EL ET WL WT, NL & ST
Add NT & SL
Add NL
Provide AII-Wa Sto - Add NT & ST
~ ~AK~~
o ~
>- -
t:: /!!
OORIGINAt>
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
GPAlZC 05-1783
Page 3 of 5
Table 2
Future Roadway Improvements
1m rove to 4-lane undivided
1m rove to 2-lane divided
1m rove to 4-lane undivided
1m rove to 4-lane divided
1m rove to 4-lane undivided
1m rove to 2-lane, divided
1m rove to 4-lane, undivided
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Public Works Conditions:
6. Along with the submittal of any development plan, prior to approval of improvement plans, or with
the application for a lot line adjustment or parcel merger, the following shall occur:
a. Provide fully executed dedication for Redbank Road to collector standards and South Fairfax
Road to arterial standards for the full frontage of the area within the GPA request.
Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and additional areas
for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Submit a current title report with the
dedication documents. If a tentative subdivision map over the entire GPAlZC area is
submitted, dedication can be provided with the map.
Upon further development of the GPAlZC 05-1783 area, improvements shall include full
width improvements on the south half of Redbank Road in front of the "gap" parcels (A TN
173-260-09 through 11). If it becomes necessary to obtain any off site right of way and ifthe
developer is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up-
front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security
for the purchase and improvement of said right of way. Upon construction of the Northeast
Sewer trunk interceptor line along Redbank Road, the City will compact the upper 2.5 feet of
the trench "gap" parcels (A TN 173-260-09 through 11) to facilitate a roadway. This will allow
the developer to merely fine grade the roadbed, place base and asphalt. In addition, the City
will reconstruct the south 1/2 of the existing "gap" parcels (A TN 173-260-09 through 11)
roadway to current standards. For orderly development (Modified by City Council).
b. These GPAlZC areas are too small to support their own storm drainage sumps. The City will
allow no more than one sump per 80 acres; therefore, each GPAlZC area must be included
within the drainage area of adjoining property. The developer shall participate in the
development of a Planned Drainage Area and provide a drainage study for the GPAlZC
area, showing its proportionate share of the necessary ultimate storm drainage facilities. For
orderly development.
c. Sewer service must be provided to the GPAlZC area. The developer shall be responsible
for the initial extension of the sewer line to serve the property. This sewer line must
necessarily be sized to serve a much larger area that the project area. The City is willing to
aid the developer in the formation of a Planned Sewer Area andlor an Assessment Distri~fRK~
J t,
>- ~
t:::: ~
rJ OAIGINAP
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
GPAlZC 05-1783
Page 4 of 5
provide a mechanism for the reimbursement of oversizing costs to the developer. For
orderly development.
d. In order to preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of
sediments from construction or from storm events, all retention and detention basins
(sumps) shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the
introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments to the sump. This device shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer, and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain
system with the least maintenance cost. For orderly development.
7. The entire area covered by this General Plan Amendment shall be included in the Consolidated
Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance
District with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or
application for a lot line adjustment for any portion of this GPA area. For orderly development.
8. Payment of median fees for the arterial frontage of the property within the GPAlZC request is
required prior to recordation of any map or approval of any improvement plan for the GPAlZC area.
For orderly development.
9. local Mitiaation
Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not paid for by the Regional
Transportation Impact Fee nor included with normal development improvements) as indicated in
Tables 6 of the traffic study. An estimate and fee schedule should be developed by the applicant
and approved prior to recordation of a map or issuance of a building permit. Proportionate shares
from the study as follows:
Brundage In & Fairfax Rd, Add 1 EBl, 1 EBT, 1 WBl, 1 WBT, 1 NBl, 1 SBT, 2.70% share
Fairfax Rd & E. Wilson Rd, Add 1 NBT, 1 SBT, 9.89% share
Notes: NB - north bound, SB - south bound, WB - west bound, EB - east bound
l - left turn lane, T - Through lane, R - Right turn lane
10. Reaional Transoortation Imoact Fee
Pay the standard residential fees, as adopted at time of development.
Deoartment of Conservation:
11. The Division recommends that the developer be required to locate, leakage test, and possibly
reabandon the abandoned oil wells on-site prior to construction. The Division recommends that oil
well locations be recorded on all applicable future maps and that no structure be located over or in
proximity of an abandoned well. Both of these issues are adequately addressed in Section
15.66.080.B. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which requires any future lot containing an
abandoned oil well to be encumbered with a deed restriction specifying the exact location of such
well and prohibiting the construction of any structures within ten feet ofthe well. Staffwill coordinate
with the Division and the future subdivider of the project site to ensure compliance with these
provisions of the Municipal Code. The Division also notified staff that if excavation or grading
operations uncover any previously unrecorded well, then the Division's Bakersfield district office
must be notified as such wells may require remedial operations; staffwill address this potential issue
at the tentative subdivision phase of the project. For public health, safety, and welfare.
Citv Attornev:
X ~~KS"-'9
o ~
>- -
l- m
- ,....
c:J (:)
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
GPAlZC 05-1783
Page 5 of 5
12. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to
related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property
owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City
of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners or boards ("City" herein)
against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them,
or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising
from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CECA approval or
any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for
City's sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the
City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other
permits or entitlements are issued.
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or preceding, falling under this
condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall
be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense
of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity
or party.
Plannina Deoartment:
13. With submittal of any tentative tract application adjacent to railroad tracks, the applicant shall
provide a noise study to determine the height and location of a sound wall. For public health, safety,
and welfare.
14. The Redbank Road crossing of the Eastside Canal needs widening, and the Wilson Road and
Muller Road crossings on the Eastside Canal must be constructed. Developer shall pay their
proportionate share of the cost and shall aid in the formation of a Major Bridge and Thoroughfare
District for these crossings. For public health, safety, and welfare.
JS: S:\GPA 2nd 2006\05-1783\Staff Reports\Exhibit A-1.doc
~ 'OAI(~1>
o (fl
>- .."
~ ~
OORIG'NA~
Exhibit B
General Plan Amendment Map
x <o~K~?>
a tP
>- ~
t- m
- ,....
f,,) ORIGINAf'
.
!;!!
I II) W
Z II; co~
~0 .:4 c ~ ""I
~ cri!
I II) ~
~ t-
M c
CO
I'-
~
I
LO ....
0
.... N
....
Z
W If
~ i iii
0
Z
W If
~
<C 15
If
Z If
::s If
a..
...J If
15
~
W If
Z If If
W
(!) J If Al.NfIOO
AlIO
N I
ALNf'IOO
ALIO
Go
!!i
!!i
X fQAK~
Q t,
>- -1\
I- -
"0 ~
ORIGINAC'
fit
""'''i
\,If
.~
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN
Land Use Desllnatlons
RR Rural Residential LI Light Industrial
2.5 gross acres/dwelling unit
SI Service Industrial I ,
ER Estate Residential .
1 dwelling unit/net acre HI Heavy Industrial
SR Suburban Residential -----
$ 4 dwelling units/net acre
P Public Facilities
SRI LR County: $ 4 dwelling units/net acre
City: $ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre PS Public/Private Schools
LR Low Density Residential PT Public Transportation COrridors
$ 7.26 dwelling units/net acre
P-SW Solid Waste Facilities
LMR Low Medium Density Residential
> 4 units but $ 10 dwelling units/net acre OS Open Space .
HMR High Medium Density Residential OS-P Parks and Recreation
> 7.26 units but $ 17.42 dwelling units/net acre
OS-S Slopes exceeding 30%
HR High Density Residential
> 17.42 units but $ 72.6 dwelling units/net acre R-IA Resource - Intensive AgrtculbJre
20 acre minimum parcel size ,
.-.-- .
R-EA Resource - Extensive AgrtculbJre
HC Highway Commercial 20 acre minimum parcel size
GC General Commercial 80 acre min (Williamson Act)
R-MP Resource - Minerals & petroleum
MC Major Commercial 5 acre minimum parcel size
OC Office Commercial
MUC Mixed Use Commercial
General Plan Street Cla8sificatlon
Freewavs
provide service to through traffic exclusivelY with no access to abutting property and no at-grade
intersections.
EXDresswavs are arterial highways with partial control of access which mayor may not be divided or have
grade separations at intersections, and may be an interim facility for an ultimate freeway.
Arterials
are used primarily by through traffic with a minimal function to provide access to abutting
property .
Collectors
function to connect local streets with arterials and to provide access to abutting property.
are exclusively for property access and through traffic is discouraged.
Locals
S:\Forms\zone-gp.doc
~ ~A/(~?>.
o <P
>- ""t\
I- ill
;,; ,....
nRIG.JNAt>