HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 045-12RESOLUTION NO. 5'— 12
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 11 -0418, AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN
BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF PANAMA LANE AND ASHE ROAD.
WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates, for JEC Panama LLC, filed an application
requesting a General Plan Amendment, to change the land use designations of certain
property in the City of Bakersfield as hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No, 11 -0418, an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, is as follows:
General Plan Amendment No. 11 -0418:
McIntosh & Associates, for JEC Panama, LLC, applied to amend the Land Use
Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan consisting of a change
from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on
9.88 acres, located at the northeast corner of Panama Lane and Ashe Road;
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 Thursday,
March 15, 2012, on General Plan Amendment No. 11 -0418, 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, by Resolution No, 03 -12 on March 15, 2012, the Planning Commission
recommended approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 11 -0418 subject to
the "Mitigation Measures & 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
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted for General Plan Amendment No, 11 -0418
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, 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, May 23, 2012 on General Plan Amendment No. 11 -0418, 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
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings:
The above recitals and findings are true and correct,
Page 1 of 3
o``gAKF9�,
s
r
v G
ORIGINAL
2. The City Council has considered and concurs with the findings made by the
Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. 03 -12 on March 15, 2012.
3. The laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of
Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly
followed by city staff and the Planning Commission.
4. The applicant by prior written agreement will comply with all adopted
mitigation measures contained within the Negative Declaration,
5. 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 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 General Plan Amendment No. 11 -0418 is
hereby adopted.
3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and
papers relevant thereto have been transmitted by the Secretary of the
Planning Commission to the City Council and is hereby received and
accepted.
4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts General Plan Amendment No.
11 -0418, as shown on the map marked Exhibit "B ", subject to the Mitigation
Measures & Conditions of Approval as listed in Exhibit "A."
5. The General Plan Amendment (No. 11 -0418) 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.
--- - - - - -- 000-- - - - - --
Page 2 of 3 o1, ?,NK, ,q
> m
t- r
(.J O
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 r by
the following vote;
✓ ✓
AY COUNCILMEMBER SALAS BENHAM WEIR COUCH HANSON SULLIVAN JOHNSON
0E S: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ✓1>�'LQ
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
ROBERTA GAFFORD, C
CITY CLERK and Ex Offi io Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form;
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: 0 --
Exhibit A - Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
B - General Plan Amendment Map
Page 3 of 3 ,, K
1-1
F- r
t� C7
ORIGINAL
ATTACHMENT A
PD Review No. 11 -0417
(Site Plan Approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2012)
o``gAKF9�,
s
~' r
L) O
ORIGINAL
u I 111
gg I' n!
I I I I I T1 U I T1 I -� .
-1111 M�l I ITi a.
D
\ ----------- -
------- ----
-- -------------
------------
-- ------------- --- - ---- - ------------------ -- - --- ------------- --
GVOw AHSV i'i� @' !'
�j
-^ g, Q
ORIGINAL
iffillIFFY
Ril
I On
VIE
u I 111
gg I' n!
I I I I I T1 U I T1 I -� .
-1111 M�l I ITi a.
D
\ ----------- -
------- ----
-- -------------
------------
-- ------------- --- - ---- - ------------------ -- - --- ------------- --
GVOw AHSV i'i� @' !'
�j
-^ g, Q
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Cy
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES & CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT /ZONE CHANGE NO. 11 -0418
Air Quality and Green House Gas Mitigation Measures
1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant /developer of the project site shall
submit documentation to the Planning Department that they will /have met all air
quality control measures required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District.
Bioloaical Impact Mitigation Measures
2. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified consultant
survey the location for burrowing owls, and comply with the provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). Survey protocol shall
be that recommended by the State Department of Fish and Game. Developer
shall be subject to the mitigation measures recommended by the consultant. A
copy of the survey shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to ground
disturbance.
The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 -711). The MBTA
makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory
bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or
products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections
3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code
prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid
violation of the take provisions of these laws generally requires that project -
related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during
critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 - August 15, annually). Disturbance
that causes nest abandonment and /or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or
abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered "taking" and is potentially
punishable by fines and /or imprisonment. Mitigation for potentially significant
biological resource impact.
3. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified consultant
survey the location for kit fox, and comply with the provisions of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Survey protocol shall be that
recommended by the State Department of Fish and Game. Developer shall be
subject to the mitigation measures recommended by the consultant. A copy of
the survey shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to ground
disturbance.
The current MBHCP expires in year 2014. Projects may be issued an urban
development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay feeso4�AKF9�
ti.
r
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11 -0418
Page 2
prior to the 2014 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by
the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development
permit, grading plan approval or building permit) before the 2014 expiration
date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre-
payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue
urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban
development permits issued after the 2014 expiration date may be subject to a
new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply
directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California Fish
and Game Department. Mitigation for potentially significant biological resource
impact.
Cultural Impact Mitigation Measures
4. If human remains are 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 Resource Code which details the
appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native
American community shall be notified immediately. Mitigation for cultural
impacts.
5. Prior to ground- disturbance activities associated with this project, personnel
associates with the grading effort shall be informed of the importance of the
potential cultural and archaeological resources (i.e. archaeological sites,
artifacts, features, burials, etc.) that may be encountered during site preparation
activities, how to identify those resources in the field, and of the regulatory
protections afforded to those resources. The personnel shall be informed of
procedures relating to the discovery of archaeological remains during grading
activities and cautioned to avoid archaeological finds with equipment and not
collect artifacts. The applicant /developer of the project site shall submit
documentation to the Planning Department that they have met this requirement
prior to commencement of ground- disturbance activities. This documentation
should include information on the date(s) of training activities, the individual(s)
that conducted the training, a description of the training, and a list of names of
those who were trained. Should cultural remains be uncovered, the on -site
supervisor shall immediately notify a qualified archaeologist. Mitigation for
cultural impacts.
v O
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11 -0418
Page 3
Public Works
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 the existing right turn deceleration lane in
Ashe Road into Sunrise Crest Street (of Tract 6776). Submit a current title report
with the dedication documents. If a tentative subdivision map over the entire
GPA /ZC area is submitted, dedication can be provided with the map.
b. Submit a revised drainage study to be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer to reflect the development under the new land use and zoning. Any
modification to the existing drainage system to be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer.
c. Submit verification to the City Engineer of the existing sewer system's capability
to accept the additional flows to be generated through development under the
new land use and zoning.
d. The project applicant shall provide the City of Bakersfield with a phasing plan of
the onsite development if applicable.
e. Developer is responsible for the construction of all infrastructure, both public and
private, within the boundary of the GPA /ZC area. This includes the construction
of any and all boundary streets to the centerline of the street, unless otherwise
specified. The developer is also responsible for the construction of any off site
infrastructure required to support this development, as identified in these
conditions. The phasing of the construction all infrastructure will be addressed at
the subdivision map stage. For orderly development
7. Payment of the proportionate share of the cost of the median for the arterial
frontage of the property within the GPA /ZC request is required prior to
recordation of any map or approval of any improvement plan for the GPA /ZC
area. For orderly development.
8. Payment of the proportionate share of the Ashe Road Panned Bridge and Major
Thoroughfare area per Resolution 67 -89 prior to recordation of any map or
approval of any improvement plan for the GPA /ZC area. For orderly
development.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in
the RTIF program by paying the adopted commercial and residential unit fees in
gAKF9�
r
U O
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11-0418
Page 4
place for the various land use types at time of development. Mitigation for
Traffic Impacts.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
10. Upon approval of this GPA request, the Applicant /property owner (and
successor owners) shall relinquish and void all rights and entitlements to all
previously approved tentative subdivisions (Tentative Tract Map # 6776).
Mitigation for orderly development.
Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures
11. The proposed project's proportional share of traffic mitigation for intersections
has been determined as the ratio of the project's added peak hour traffic to the
total projected future increases in traffic volumes until the year 2015. The table
below indicates the project's pro -rata share of necessary improvements and
mitigation.
Table 6: Intersection Im rovements /Mlti anon
/rro -Kara
snare
Intersection /Mitigation
Total Project
Year
Year
Improvements
Traffic @
2015
2035
Not Covered
Year 2015
Future
Future
by RTIF
Traffic +
Traffic +
Project
Project
PHV
%1,2
PHV
PHV
White Ln & Ashe Rd - AM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
7
0.10%
4678
7017
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of proj. traffic
White Ln & Ashe Rd - PM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
14
0.16%
5890
8931
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic
District Blvd & Ashe Rd - AM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
13
0.28%
2787
4598
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic
s
� r
V O
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11-0418
Page 5
District Blvd & Ashe Rd - PM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
29
0.53%
3154
5476
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Harris Rd & Reliance Dr- AM Peak 3
22
1.60%
1194
1376
-
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrant Satisfied: 3
Harris Rd & Reliance Dr - PM Peak 3
87
6.14%
1188
1417
-
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrant Satisfied: 3
Harris Rd & Ashe Rd - AM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
54
1.26%
2062
4292
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Harris Rd & Ashe Rd - PM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
183
3.16%
2821
5792
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Harris Rd & Stine Rd - AM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
7
0.30%
1977
2313
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Harris Rd & Stine Rd -PM Peak
2015: No improvements required for
33
1.31%
2236
2528
-
future 2015 traffic increases
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Proiect Entrance # 1 & Ashe Rd- AM Peak
3 as 99 7.20% 1000 1375 -
r
v O
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11-0418
Page 6
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: None
Project Entrance #1 & Ashe Rd- PM Peak,
416
25.24
1396
1648
3,4
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: 1 & 3
Panama Ln & Gosford Rd - AM Peak 5
10
0.18%
2349
5450
-
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Panama Ln & Gosford Rd -PM Peak 5
66
1.01 %
2677
6536
-
2015: Add 1 ET & 1 WT.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Panama Ln & Reliance Dr- AM Peak 5
22
0.45%
1952
4891
-
2015: Provide Signal - Warrants Satisfied:
1 &3.
2015 + Proj.: No mitigation required due
to addition of project traffic.
Panama Ln & Reliance Dr - PM Peak 5
140
2.33%
2368
6007
-
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj.: Provide Signal - Warrant
Satisfied: 3
Panama Ln & Ashe Rd - AM Peak 5
32
0.61%
2810
5225
-
2015: Add 1 ET.
2015 + Proj.: No mitigation required due
to addition of project traffic.
Panama Ln & Ashe Rd - PM Peak 5
2015: Add 1 ET. 168 2.62% 3362 6403 -
2015+ Proj.: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
�4<
?, N T
cP
U QD
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11-0418
Page 7
Panama Ln & Proiect Entrance #2 - AM
74
1.78%
2217
4151
-
Peak 4
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: None
Panama Ln & Project Entrance #2 - PM
360
7.04%
2833
5116
-
Peak
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: 1 & 3
Panama Ln & Golden Gate DR - AM
32
0.99%
1667
3238
-
Peak
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due
to addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: None
Panama Ln & Golden Gate DR - PM Peak
122
2.35%
2715
5194
-
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: None
Panama Ln & Stine Rd - AM Peak
2015 No improvements required for future
19
0.31%
3650
6172
-
2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Panama Ln & Stine Rd - PM Peak
2015 No improvements required for future
68
0.88%
4565
7714
-
2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
o``gAKF9�
m
r-
v o
ORIGINAL_
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11 -0418
Page 8
Berkshire Rd & Ashe Rd - AM Peak 3, s
5
0.47%
653
1075
-
2015: no improvements required for future
2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: None
Berkshire Rd & Ashe Rd - PM Peak 3,5
9
0.93%
575
967
-
2015: No improvements required for
future 2015 traffic increases.
2015 + Proj: No mitigation required due to
addition of project traffic.
Warrants Satisfied: None
SIT _ A i
4A.L... -4
Thr- -k I nY1C'
Notes: PHV = Peak Hour Volume; NL = Northbound Derr Lane, N - iwi ii ZOO, KA 1 1 11 1 L-1
NR = Northbound Right Lane; EL = Eastbound Left Lane; ET = Eastbound Through Lane;
ER = Eastbound Right Lane; SL = Southbound Left Lane; ST = Southbound Through Lane;
SR= Southbound Right Lane; WL = Westbound Left Lane; WT= Westbound Through Lane;
WR = Westbound Right Lane; LOS = Level of Service; Byd Std. = Beyond City of Bakersfield
Standard Detail T -4; RTIF = Regional Transportation Impact Fee, s /v= seconds per
vehicle in delay
1. Percentages Based on COB Formula 6.2.2.12f: Project Volume /(TIF Buildout Year
Volume)
2. Project percentage of future traffic is shown in this column regardless of
mitigation requirements.
3. 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 1
lane Approaches, 1 440vph for 2 lane by 1 lane Approaches, and 1600vph for 2
lane by 2 lane Approaches).
4. Project created intersection. Developer shall be responsible for improvements
related to the project's frontage along this intersection.
5. Improvements to this intersection are include in the Phase IV Metropolitan
Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program and therefore paid for
by project's contribution to that fee program.
City Attorney
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
F m
U O
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures & Conditions of Approval
GPA /ZC 11-0418
Page 9
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 CEQA 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 proceeding,
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.
DL: \\ S: \GPAs \GPA 1st 2012 \11 -0418 & PD review 1 1- 0417 \AdminSR \Exhibit A.doc
p`` g A /C,c9
m
U r
O
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN MAP
o� � AKF9s
r- m
U p
ORIGINAL_
� � J
N0 SONIHdS ad03:
J
Q' 0'
J J
M0 N310 ONIadS
J � }
0 j
....... In
z
O
U
w
co w
cr r� Q
LU
w
w
D
T— To
Z
W
2
0
Z
cW
G
Z
IL
ry
W
Z
W
0
VnS ONRidS 3: 10 3WI.
0
0 i
O
J
m � U
z 10 fill
x
CL
U)
WI N30Nd0 N3380
3AV Od01NI2ll
z v
N
P`I� O150N
cP�PCPS PRJ�N'E �
�N
P�
�c
a o �
d' J
I
w ua WiN3NUN00
w
H
U)
J
r
Q (n
J Q
w
a
x
C7
J
m
J
F- oa 3HSV y
H w
L w
zJ_ �
F a0 N33a0 NMdH
m O
o a Q O
0 3 � z
U m w m 0 O
0 O 2 p F 2
~ ca w
LL x J
i10 N33a0 a3M388
2 U
(n z
m
O U
3A) D8 O F'
� U �
O x
0 D
U SONINdS m
J w
LL
1 NV3d ono o
� J
J
ll3Md330
0
0
w
ti
Z `o LL U)
0
M
0
z
Q
Q
a
D
1S oatlS z
0
it
a
z
s
9J,
T
m
ORIGINAL