The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 020-01RESOLUTION NO. 0 20' 01_' A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, AND DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE SEVENTEEN OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNIClPAL CODE AND ZONING MAP NO. 101-34 BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF 18.77 ACRES FROM "A" (AGRICULTURE) TO C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RENFRO ROAD AND STOCKDALE HIGHWAY (ZONE CHANGE NO. P00-0756) WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the City Council 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 northwest corner of Renfro Road and Stockdale Highway; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 139-00 on December 21, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration and disapproval of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to approve a zone change from"A" to C-2 zoning as delineated on attached Zoning Map No.103-34 marked Exhibit "B", 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 disapproval of a change in zoning of the subject property from "A" to "C-2", 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 duty followed by city staff, Planning Commission and this Council; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration with mitigations was advertised and posted on November 16, 2000 in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the decision of the Planning Commission recommending disapproval was not appealed by Applicant; and WHEREAS, the zone change decision was appealed by Mr. James T. Murphy, owner of the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) property located along the north side of the project site; and WHEREAS, Mr. James T. Murphy is concerned with the impact to his property resulting from the Planning Commission recommendation of two specific findings and mitigation which are as follows: Findings Zoning of the property for retail commercial uses is premature due to the existence of C-1 commercial zoning adjacent to the north of the project area. ?~- ~ /~&"~"-u. 2. Commercial zoning of the property would be considered only if the C-1 zone adjacent to the north is changed to allow or developed with uses other than retail commercial. Mitigation 1. The subject site shall be rezoned to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) at such future time that commercial rezoning is approved. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required notices have been given. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed. 3. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed zoning amendment is premature and unnecessary in lieu of the surrounding land uses. Zoning of the project site for retail commercial uses is premature due to the existence of C-1 commercial zoning adjacent to the north boundary of the project site. Commercial zoning of the project site would be considered only if the C-1 zone adjacent to the north is changed to allow or developed with uses other than retail commercial. 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 minis" 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, The appeals of the Planning Commission recommendation by Ms. Susan Meza, Mr. David Ahrens and Mr. James T. Murphy were duly considered, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND FOUND by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct. 2 2. That the requested amendment to Section 17.06.020 (Zoning Map)of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield changing the land use zoning of that certain property in said City, the boundaries of which property are shown on Zoning Map No. 101-34 marked Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and more particularly described in attached Exhibit "C", is hereby denied. 3. That the appeal is hereby denied ......... 000 ........ ! 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 FEB 1 ~i 20D1 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER .~J CITY CLERK and Ex Officio ~,/lerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfi(~ld APPROVED FEB 14 2001 APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney RD: January 31, 2001 S:\Dole\P00-0756\CC ZC Res Deny. rtf. wpd 3 EXHIBIT "B" Maps ~_")~IGINAL R-S ZONING MAP 101-34 LEGEND EXHIBIT "C" Legal Description EXHiBIT"C" Legal Description Zone Change P00-0756 The South 1/~ of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 29 South, Range 26 East, MDB&M. P:\P00-0756\Legal Description.wpd November 30, 2000 (4:45PM)