HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2003 AGENDA PACKET BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2003
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Pre-Meeting - 5:15 p.m. Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
PREMEETING
1. ROLL CALL
(1 hour)
WORKSHOP
a. Ambulance rate request Workshop.
CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR MEETING
1. INVOCATION by Pastor Martin Murdock, Wesley United Methodist Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE by Hannah Bonderov, 1st Grade Student, Stockdale
Elementary School.
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION ACTION
PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation by Mayor Hall of Proclamation to Betty Eaves, President of the
Assistance League of Bakersfield, proclaiming February 19, 2003, "Assistance
League Day."
b. Presentation by Mayor Hall of Proclamation to Helen Collins, President of
Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Association, proclaiming March 3, 2003, as
"Read Across Bakersfield Day."
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
APPOINTMENTS
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes:
a. Minutes from Meeting of January 29, 2003.
Payments:
Approval of department payments form January 17, 2003 to January 30, 2003 in
the amount of $6,435,366.84 and self insurance payments from January 17,
2003 to January 30, 2003 in the amount of $642,410.21.
Ordinances:
(Ward 1,4,6,7) d.
(Ward 3)
(Ward 7)
(Ward 7)
(Ward 5)
First reading of an Ordinance adding a new Chapter 8.90 to the Bakersfield
Municipal Code Regulating Land Applications of Biosolids within the City Limits.
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Bakersfield Municipal Code Section
§1.12.010, §1.12.040, §1.12.060, and §1.12.070 by adding Annexation No. 434
to Ward 4 and portions of Annexation No. 435 to both Ward 1 and Ward 7 and a
portion of Annexation No. 436 to Ward 6. (First reading 1/29/03)
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 15.64 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code relating to the California Fire Code. (First reading 1/15/03)
Resolutions:
Resolution of Intention No. 1290 to add territory, Area 4-26 (Paladino, Masterson
NE) to the Consolidated Maintenance District, preliminarily adopting, confirming
and approving Public Works Director's Report.
Resolution adding territory, Area 5-08 (Panama, Colony North) to the
Consolidated Maintenance District and confirming the assessments, approving
the Public Works Director's Report and authorizing collection of assessments by
the Kern County Tax Collector.
Resolution making CEQA findings and certification of Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change No. 02-
0193 located east of State Route 99, north of Panama Lane.
Resolution making CEQA Findings and Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change
No. 02-0030 located adjacent on the west side Gosford Road, between Pacheco
Road and Harris Road.
(Ward 4,5)
(Ward 1)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 6)
(Ward 4)
CONSENT CALENDAR continued
A Resolution of Application proposing proceedings for annexation of uninhabited
territory to the City of Bakersfield property identified as Annexation No. 440 &
441 located along the west of Gosford Road, south of Panama Lane to
McCutchen Road and along the west side of Allen Road, north of Noriega Road.
Agreements:
Demolition of improvements for the Bakersfield Senior Housing Project Center
on the north side of 5"' Street, east of R Street:
Contract Change Order No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-284 (Demolition of
improvements at 612 5th Street) with Irwin Excavation in the amount of
$8,500.
Contract Change Order No. 2 to Agreement No. 02-284 (Demolition of
improvements at 500 "R" Street) with Irwin Excavation in the amount of
$6,5OO.
Relocation of the Friant-Kern Canal at the intersection of Olive Drive and
Calloway Drive.
Contract Change Order No. 2 to Agreement No. 02-334 with Vadnais
Corporation in the amount of $239,280 (for a total contract amount of
$3,588,355.36).
Appropriate $60,000 Sewer Enterprise Fund balance to the Capital
Improvement Budget for sewer main improvements.
Amendment No. 1 ($24,000 for a total not to exceed compensation clause of
$69,000) to Consultant Agreement No. 02-281 with Maurice Etchechury for
project management of Friant-Kern Canal Relocation, Calloway Canal Culvert
and Calloway Drive/Olive Drive Intersection Construction.
Occupancy License Agreements with San Joaquin Valley Railroad to allow
underground domestic water pipeline crossings.
Agreements with North Kern Water Storage District for Olive Drive bridge over
Calloway Canal Project:
1. Road Easement Agreement ($35,000)
2. Storm Drain and Water Line License Agreement (not to exceed $5,000)
3. Nuisance Water License Fee Agreement (not to exceed $2,000)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
(Ward 7)
(Ward 2)
CONSENT CALENDAR continued
Transportation Impact Fee Agreement:
1. Transportation Impact Fee Agreement with Vista Finestra I, LLC for Tract
6012, located north of Stockdale Highway, adjacent to Renfro Road
(Impact fee credit not to exceed $66,108 and reimbursement amount of
$45, 995).
2. Transfer $45, 995 of appropriations within the Gas Tax Fund's Capital
Improvement Budget to fund reimbursement to developer for costs to
landscape median islands along a specific section of Renfro Road.
Transportation Impact Fee Agreement with Stonecreek Partners, Inc. for Tract
6124 (Estimated Impact Fee Credit - $117,661), located on Wible Road north of
McKee Road.
Tract Maps/Improvement Agreements:
1. Final Map and Improvement Agreements with Stone Creek Partners, Inc.
for Tract 6124 Phase 1 located north of McKee Road and east of Wible
Road.
Agreement with the County of Kern for Internet Provider Services for $18,398.
Bids:
t.
Rescind award to Coalinga Motors, Incorporated, $111,749.14, for seven (7)
mid-size sedans.
Accept bid to award annual contract to Jim Alfter, Cement Contractor, not to
exceed $66,000.00, for canal liner repair.
Accept bids to award annual contracts to Groeniger & Company, not to exceed
$180,000.00, and Badger Meter, Incorporated, not to exceed $75,000 for water
meters. Total $255,000.
Miscellaneous:
w. Approve purchase of Novell Software licenses not to exceed $136,000.
x. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-338 (Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Bakersfield and Assistance League of Bakersfield.)
Staff recommends adoption of Consent Calendar items a. through x.
4
(Ward 4)
(Ward 4)
HEARINGS
Ordinance amending Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.69 related to Adult
Entertainment Businesses Separation and Distance Requirements. (Staff
comments by City Attorney Thiltgen.)
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance.
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0976; Towery Homes has proposed
a General Plan Amendment and a zone change from general commercial to Iow
density residential and deletion of a condition of approval from previous GPA 2-
91 Segment III and ZUA 5169 on an adjacent parcel at the southwest corner of
Reina Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Staffcemments by Development Services
Director Hardisty.)
Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and adopting the General
Plan Amendment to change land use designations from GC to LR and
deletion of "condition of approval number 3" and "mitigation measure
number 2" of previous GPA 2-91 Segment III on an adjacent 73.79 acres.
Ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration and amending Title 17 of
the Municipal Code and Zoning Map No. 101-13 from C-2 to R-1 and
deleting "condition of approval number 3" and "mitigation measure
number 2 of previous ZUA 5169 on an adjacent 73.79 acres.
Staff recommends adopting the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and
General Plan Amendment deleting "condition number 3" and "mitigation measure
number 2" of GPA 2-91 Segment III and ZUA 5169 and first reading of the Ordinance.
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 02-0939; Porter-Robertson Engineering
has proposed a General Plan Amendment and an ordinance amendment for 20
acres, located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road.
(Staff comments by Development Services Director Hardisty.)
Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and adopting the General
Plan Amendment to change land use designation from R-IA (Resource-
Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Suburban Residential) on 20 acres.
Ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration and amending Title 17 of
the Municipal Code and Zoning Map No. 101-35 from A (Agriculture) to
R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20 acres.
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration,
approving the General Plan Amendment and first reading of the Ordinance.
5
(Ward 7)
(Ward 5)
10,
HEARINGS continued
d. Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 02-0193; Panama 99
Properties LLC has proposed to amend the general plan on the east side of
State Route 99, north of Panama Lane. (Staff comments by Development
Services Director Hardisty.
Resolution making findings denying the appeal and adopting proposed
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan by changing the land use map designation from LR (Low
Density Residential) on 33.95 acres and OS-P (Open Space-Park) on 3
acres to GC (General Commercial on 34.5 acres.
An Ordinance Amending Section 17.06.020 (Zone Map No. 123-24) of
Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the
zoning from an MH (Mobile Home) zone to PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) zone on 37.5 acres generally located on the east side of
State Route 99, north of Panama Lane.
Staff recommends denying the appeal, adopting of the Resolution and first reading of
the Ordinance.
e. Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 02-0030; Castle &
Cooke California, inc. has proposed to amend the general plan and zoning from
industrial to general commemial at the at northwest corner of Gosford and Harris
Roads. (Staff comments by Development Services Director Hardisty.)
1. Resolution making findings, denying both appeals and adopting the
proposed amendment to the land use element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan by changing the land use map designation from
SI (Service Industrial) to GC (General Commercial) on 78 gross acres.
2. Ordinance amending Section 17.06.020 (Zone Map No. 123-20) of Title
Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the zoning
from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial
Development) on 73.53 net acres.
Staff recommends denying the two appeals in part, adopt the Resolution and first
reading of the Ordinance.
REPORTS
None.
6
11.
12.
13.
14.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
None,
NEW BUSINESS
None,
COUNCIL AND MAYOR STATEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Tandy
City Manager
7
B A K E R S F I E L D
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
February 03, 2003
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ALAN CHRISTENSEN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER~
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS- FEBRUARY 12, 2003 COUNCIL MEETING
PRE-MEETING
There is one workshop on Hall Ambulance's Rate Request
PRESENTATIONS
There wilt be two presentations: 1) Mayor Hall of Proclamation to Betty Eaves, President of the
Assistance League of Bakersfield; and 2) Mayor Hall of Proclamation to Helen Collins, President
of Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Association.
CONSENTCALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are explained by Administrative Reports. Those that should be
highlighted include:
Resolutions:
Item 8h. Resolution makinq CEQA Findinqs and Certification of Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Chanqe located east of State Route 99,
north of Panama Lane. The project consists of a Land Use Element amendment change from LR
(Low Density Residential) on 33.95 acres and OS-P (Open Space-Park) on 3 acres to GC (General
Commercial) on 34.5 acres. The concurrent zone change is proposed to change the zoning from
MH (Mobil Home) and C-2 (Commercial) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) on 37.52
acres. The proposed development is a 380,000 square foot mixed use commercial shopping
center.
The EIR focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed project. If
a significant adverse impact results from the project, mitigation measures are recommended to
avoid the impact or reduce the levels of impact to less than significant. The EIR discusses
potential impacts to resources listed below and if applicable, recommends mitigation measures.
The finat EIR has incorporated and/or responded to all comments made at the public hearing and
in correspondence received during the legally defined public review period. As a result of the initial
study, NOP and scoping process, no impacts on agricultural resources, geology and soils,
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 03, 2003
PAGE 2
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation
or utilities and service systems are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The Draft EIR was sent to the City Council on September 16, 2002 and the comments with
responses constituting the Final EIR were sent on December 5, 2002.
Item 8i. Resolution makinq CEQA Findinqs and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Chance located adiacent on the
west side Gosford Road, between Pacheco Road and Harris Road. Castle & Cooke California,
Inc. has proposed to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General
Plan by changing the land use map designation from SI (Service Industrial) to GC (General
Commercial) on 78 gross acres. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has also proposed to change the
zoning from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) on 73.53
net acres. The P.C.D. proposal involves the development of approximately 700,000 square feet of
various retail commercial and service uses, anchored by several major "big-box" retail tenants.
The major anchor buildings would comprise a total of approximately 634,000 square feet. Several
smaller pads for retail businesses would comprise a total of approximately 53,000 square feet.
Additionally, several small pads for fast-food businesses are proposed, comprising a total of
approximately 12,500 square feet.
The Final EIR has incorporated and/or responded to all comments made at the public hearing and
in correspondence received during the legally defined public review period. The Final EIR
summarizes the NOP (Notice of Preparation) and scoping results. No impacts on aesthetics,
agricultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning,
mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service
systems are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. On December 19, 2002, the Planning
Commission adopted a Resolution recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact
report.
Item 8i Resolution of Application proposing proceedinqs for annexation of uninhabited territory
identified as Annexation No. 440 & 441 located alonq the west of Gosford Road, south of Panama
Lane to McCutchen Road and alonq the west side of Allen Road, north of Norieqa Road. The
proposed annexation consists of approximately 300 acres of uninhabited land. The property
owners of each of the annexation territories have consented to annexation. The owners want to
receive City services.
Aqreements:
Item 8k. Demolition of improvements for the Bakersfield Senior Housinq Proiect Center: Contract
Chanqe Order No. 1 to Aqreement with Irwin Excavation in the amount of $8,500; Contract Chanqe
Order No. 2 to Aqreement with Irwin Excavation in the amount of $6,500. This project consists of
demolishing and removing existing property improvements at 508 "R" Street and 618 5th Street, as
well as other property improvements in the area of 5th and "R" streets to facilitate the construction
of the new Bakersfield Senior Housing Center. The contractor hired to move the houses located at
the above addresses defaulted on their contract. EDCD then requested to have the houses and
their foundation removed under a change order to the demolition contract; the removal of these
houses in a timely manner is necessary in order to meet the deadline for obtaining grant money for
the construction of the new Senior Center Project. Acceptance of these change orders will amend
the total contract price to $45,000. Sufficient funds are available to fund these change orders.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 03, 2003
PAGE 3
Item 81. Relocation of the Friant-Kern Canal at the intersection of Olive Drive and Calloway Drive:
Contract Chanqe Order to Aqreement with Vadnais Corporation in the amount of $239,280 and,
Appropriation of $60,000 Sewer Enterprise Fund. This provides for the extension of a 12" water
main at the request of the City Water Resources Department. By extending the water main, the
water main network will be looped providing a safer and more reliable source for fire flows and
domestic use.
The water main improvements portion ($31,280) can be funded with existing capital improvement
funds. An appropriation is required to fund the sewer main improvements ($60,000) within the
Sewer Enterprise Fund. Sufficient project funds are available to fund the remainder of this change
order.
Item 8m. Amendment No. 1 ($24,000 for a total of to exceed compensation clause of $69,000) to
Consultation Aqreement with Maurice Etchechury for proiect manaqement of Friant-Kern Canal
Relocation. The original agreement was limited to only the Friant-Kern Canal Relocation.
Agreements have been reached with other agencies and developers regarding the Calloway Canal
Culvert and pavement reconstruction in the Calloway Drive/Olive Drive intersection. This
amendment is needed to provide necessary project management for these additional related
projects.
item 8o. Aqreements with North Kern Water Storaqe District for Olive Drive Bridqe over Callowav
Canal Project: 1) Road Easement Aqreement ($35,000; 2) Storm Drain and Water Line License
Aqreement (not to exceed $5,000; and 3) Nuisance Water License Fee Aqreement (not to exceed
$2,000. In conjunction with construction of the box culvert project, the City is required to enter into
several Agreements with the North Kern Water Storage District.
Item 8p. Transportation Impact Fee Aqreement with Vista Finestra I, LLC (Impact fee credit not to
exceed $66,108; reimbursement amount of $45,995). Vista Finestra will construct a portion of
Renfro Road in association with their tract. Vista Finestra has requested that all of the fee credit
be applied to lots within this tract. In lieu of paying median fees the developer will construct
landscaped medians on Renfro Road, north of Stockdale Highway. Since the developer will incur
costs greater than his proportionate share, this agreement provides reimbursement ($45,955) for
the portion for which he is not responsible. Approximately 25% of the reimbursement amount will
be collected from new tracts to be developed; the remainder is the responsibility of the City.
Item 8q. Transportation Impact Fee Aqreement with Stone Creek Partners, Inc. for Tract located
on Wible Road north of McKee Road (Estimated Impact Fee Credit - $117,661). Stone Creek
Partners, Inc. has requested that alt of the transportation impact fee credit available be applied to
lots within this Tract.
Item 8s. Aqreement with the County of Kern for Internet Provider Services for $18,398 annually.
The County of Kern has established multi-year contracts for Intemet Service Provider services with
Time Warner Telecom (primary provider) and Arrival Communications (secondary provider). The
County has excess capacity on the data connections and is willing to sell a portion of the capacity
to the City.
Sharing the County's high-speed connection will serve two purposes. First, it will save the City
$17,202 annually. Second, the contract with County of Kern will increase the reliability of the high-
speed internet connection since, if the Time Warner connection fails, the Arrival System will serve
as a back-up. If approved, the City will cancel it's internet service with Earthlink.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 03, 2003
PAGE 4
Bids:
Item 8t. Rescind award to Coalinqa Motors, Incorporated, $1111749.14, for seven (7/ mid-size
sedans. Vendor is unable to provide sedans to meet City specifications.
Item 8u. Award annual contract to Jim Alfter, Cement Contractor, not to exceed $66,000.00, for
canal liner repair. Seven (7) vendors received invitations to bid; four (4) bids were received. Staff
recommends acceptance of the lowest bid, submitted by the current supplier, Jim Alfter, Cement
Contractor.
item 8v. Award annual contracts to Groeniqer & Company, not to exceed $180,000.00, and
Badqer Meter, Incorporated, not to exceed $75,000 for water meters. Total $255,000. Contracts
provide for the purchase of water meters for commercial and residential use in the City. Four (4)
vendors received invitations to bid; two (2) bids were received. Staff recommends awarding two
(2) contracts; nine (9) items to Groeniger & Company, and three (3) items to Bedger Meter, Inc. in
order to get the best price.
Miscellaneous
Item 8w. Approve purchase of Novell Software licenses not to exceed $136,000. As directed by
the City Council at the last meeting, staff explored options for reducing the cost of network
licenses. Novell was contacted to request a discount price licenses. They declined to offer an
additional reduction, and confirmed that the discounted price the City is paying is the lowest that
Novell offers to any commercial or government customers and matches that given to the Federal
Government.
Staff also evaluated the feasibility of switching to a different software vendor for network services.
Unfortunately, the Novell software is so integrated with other software and hardware that switching
would require the City to purchase additional equipment and software which would greatly exceed
the $136,000 purchase for Novell licenses.
Item 8x. Amendment No. I to Aqreement No 02-338 (Memorandum of Understandinq between th~,
City of Bakersfield and Assistance Leaque of Bakersfield. The City and Assistance League of
Bakersfield entered into an agreement under which the City will obtain a parking lot north of 13th
Street from the Assistance league of Bakersfield in exchange for the Harper property, which is at
the corner of O and California Streets. The city will build a new aquatic complex and ice rink,
partially on the land that is acquired from the Assistance League. The Redevelopment Agency is
moving ahead with the acquisition of the Harper property. It has, unfortunately, taken more time
than we had hoped in the judicial process.
The work on the ice rink construction must begin soon if it is to open for the next skating season.
Hundreds of users need to know construction will begin, and if youth practices and youth league
schedules are to take place in the fail.
The attorney for the Assistance League has pointed out that judicial decisions are never 100%
certain and that, in theory, the Agency's efforts to acquire the property could be stopped in court.
Staff does not believe that will be the case, but we acknowledge the theoretical possibility.
The proposed Amendment to the Agreement provides addition security to the Assistance League if
the City fails to acquire title to the Harper property within six (6) months. If that scenario were to
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 03, 2003
PAGE 5
occur, the League would have the option to: 1) be paid cash by the City for the appraised market
value of their property, or 2) the City will convey other City property as compensation for their
parking lot, as identified in the Amendment to the Agreement.
Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the Agreement.
HEARINGS
Item 9a. Ordinance amendinq Bakersfield Municipal Code related to Adult Entertainment
Businesses Separation and Distance Requirements. The City Council recently denied an appeal
of a site plan to locate an adult entertainment business because it was proposed to be located
within 950 feet of a residential neighborhood. The proposed location was not in compliance with
City ordinances, and the denial of the appeal was appropriate. During the course of receiving
testimony on the appeal, litigation was threatened on several aspects of the City's adult
entertainment business regulations.
The City Council, as a prudent response to these threats, directed the City Attorney to very
carefully check whether our codes were in full compliance with mandates of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Staff conducted field surveys and an analysis of changed circumstances (due to
annexations, new schools, changes in land uses, new development, new residential areas, etc.).
This updated information showed fewer available sites than had previously been the case. Based
upon that unanimous opinion of three legal sources, the number of potential available sites must
be increased. After reviewing numerous alternatives, the reduction of the separation and distance
requirements from 1500 feet to 1000 feet, which is the Kern County standard, and which was
previously the City's standard, has been determined to be the most appropriate means to ensure
the City's continued compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Item 9b. General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe at Reina Road and Jewetta Avenue. Towery
Homes is initiating construction of a residential subdivision on the southwest corner of Reina Road
and Jewetta Avenue. They have requested three changes: 1) to change a 5.88 acre site from
commercial to residential; 2) remove limitation of 231 dwelling units on adjacent 73.79 acre site;
and, 3) instead of full improvements to Jewetta Avenue and Reina Road upon the first subdivision,
each subdivision within the GPA area should only pay for improvement consistent and proportional
to the size of each individual subdivision.
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this General Plan Amendment/Zone
Change and recommended City Council approval on January 16, 2003. No one spoke in
opposition and no issues were identified by other agencies or staff.
Item 9c. General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe at Stockdale Hiqhway and Renfro Road. This
amendment would permit the development of single family residential units. The Planning
Commission conducted public hearings on this General Plan Amendment/Zone Change and
recommended City Council approval on January 16, 2003. There was no opposition to the request
and the applicant agreed to all conditions and mitigation for the project. Staff conducted an initial
study and it was determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Item 9d. Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe for a commercial shoppinq center
located on the east side of State Route 99, north of Panama Lane. This item along with item 9e
are land use decisions that are very similar in nature. They are actually General Plan
Amendments and related Zone Changes for mixed use commercial centers. They have incorrectly
been characterized as decisions on Super WaI-Marts. The issue of the appropriateness of the land
use change should be considered without regard to the names of the prospective tenants in this
and other cases.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 03, 2003
PAGE 6
This issue has produced remarkable levels of advertising, lobbying, and argument on multiple
tangent issues. Most of the advertising and lobbying is off the real point. From the perspective of
the City Manager's Office, it is important to put the land use decisions in proper and historic
perspective. Four times a year we process, for your consideration, anywhere from three to a
dozen proposals to change the general plan and zoning for specific properties. We are a rapidly
growing community so we are accustomed to a high level of activity. The two decisions before you
on February 12th are not significantly different than all of the others you regularly face. The City
Manager's Office recommends you base your decision on these two fundamental questions:
1. Are the proposals within the parameters of the General Plan and its policies? The
professionals and Planning Commission say yes.
2. Was there significant neighborhood concern over the impacts of the projects on
surrounding properties? If so, can the legitimate issues raised be mitigated? The record
appears to say there was very little and conditions imposed by staff and the Planning
Commission have addressed them in the same manner as is normal and customary in
Bakersfield.
In addition, substantive and major points related to the Zoning of Commercial Centers are as
follows:
Bakersfield is a regional center and we are attracting businesses who cater to metropolitan
and regional markets. Our General Fund is fueled by sales tax. Our growing population
needs the services that such regional centers provide. We need the jobs that they
generate. We need the sales tax to pay our public safety and other service costs. For
perspective, cities in large urban areas compete with each other for such commercial
centers, many times offering financial incentives to locate in their jurisdiction.
Should the Bakersfield City Council not approve the establishment of proper zoning for
commercial centers they will locate in the nearby areas of the County or in the smaller cities
that surround us. Then the City would lose the sales tax to other jurisdictions and the ability
to impose conditions which make for high quality development as well as the convenience
to our citizens of having them located properly to serve City neighborhoods.
The City of Bakersfield has a long history of encouraging business generally and of letting
the free market system determine who prospers and who does not. Consumers, and
developers who are risking the money to build commerciaI centers, should be the ones
determining who the tenants of these projects will be.
Staff encourages you to view these General Plan Cycle decisions just like all the others you face
every quarter.
Item 9e. Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe from industrial to qeneral commercial
at northwest corner of Gosford and Harris Roads. Refer to comments in item 9d.
AT:AC:Is
cc: Department Heads
City Clerk's Office
News Media File
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Workshop
ITEM: 2.a.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
February 3, 2003
Ambulance Rate Request Workshop
//~APPROVEq
DEPARTMENT HEADt,_/_._--/
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER //~
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
kt
February 3, 2003, 3:08PM
S :\Cou ncil~admins~2003\ambulance v~rkshop.dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Presentations
ITEM: 5.a.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harvey L. Hall
January 30, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATTORNEY
ClTY MANAGER
AkPROVED
Presentation by Mayor Hall of Proclamation to Betty Eaves, President of Assistance League
of Bakersfield, proclaiming February 19, 2003, as "Assistance League Day".
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
ndw
January 30, 2003, 2:37PM
S:\MAYOR~ADMIN~,ASSISTANCE LEAGUE DAY.dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Presentations
ITEM: 5. b.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mayor Harvey L. Hall
January 30, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
Presentation by Mayor Hail of Proclamation to Helen Collins, President of Bakersfield
Elementary Teachers Association, proclaiming March 3, 2003, as "Read Across Bakersfield
Day".
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
ndw
January 30, 2003, 2:11PM
S:\MAYOR~ADMIN\READ ACROSS BAKERSFIELD DAY.dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 0,,l.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
January 31, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD ~
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
Approval of January 29, 2003 Council Meeting minutes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval,
BACKGROUND:
(Typist's Initials lower case)
January 31, 2003, 4:02PM
S:\CounciAadmins~003\JAN 15, 2003.dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8.b.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director
January 31, 2003
APPROVED
CITY MANAGER
Approval of department payments from January 17, 2003 to January 30, 2003 in the
amount of $6,435,366.84 and self insurance payments from January 17, 2003 to
January 30, 2003 in the amount of $642,410.21.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of payments totaling $7,077,777.05.
BACKGROUND:
k[9
January 31,2003, 10:19AM
S:\KimG\Forms & Lables~ADMIN-AP.doc
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM: 8.c.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED
FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD ~
DATE: January 29, 2003 CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
An Ordinance adding a new Chapter 8.90 to the Bakersfield Municipal Code Regulating
Land Applications of Biosolids within the City Limits. (All Wards)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends first reading of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At the December 11, 2002 City Council meeting, Councilmember Couch referred to the City Water Board
a request to consider an ordinance on prohibiting other outside jurisdictions from importing bulk biosolids
that do not meet Class "A"/Exceptional Quality standards to lands within the city limits. A draft ordinance
was presented to the City Water Board on January 22, 2003.
The ordinance will provide that, with the exclusion of City owned or operated lands or farms, the land
application of biosolids, except for Class "A" Exceptional Quality material to property within the city limits
will be prohibited. The Class "A"/Exceptional Quality (EQ) designation by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is a more stringent standard than the Class "B" standard that has been allowed in the
past for land applications in the County. The EQ standard requires meeting limitations on pollutants in the
biosolids and in the allowable loading rates when applied to land, as well as pathogen and vector
reduction requirements.
Except for City owned or operated wastewater treatment plants which create biosolids, an applier will be
required to apply to the City Engineer for a permit. The land spreading of the Class "A"/Exceptional Quality
biosolids would be confined to sites that are approved by the City Engineer. Permits from state and federal
agencies would be required as part of the application process to the City. An annual management plan of
land to be used, process used to create the Class "A"/Exceptional Quality material and mitigation of offsite
flows is to be required. Site restrictions with setbacks from property lines, water wells and buildings are
included in the ordinance. The City Engineer may revoke a permit when applicant has violated any
provision of the ordinance or of any federal/state laws or regulations related to the land application of the
Class "A"/Exceptional Quality biosolids. Monthly written reports will be required of the applicanrs activity
January 29, 2003, 8:03AM
S:\2003 ADMIN RPTS/FE12WT1HGdot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
which is to include quantity of biosolids transported, amounts applied to lands, certified laboratory results
of tests, as well as any other information required by the City Engineer.
The ordinance excludes biosolid products that are in a bag or container packaged for routine retail sales
through regular retail outlets which are primarily used for residential landscaping.
The project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, in
accordance with Section 15308 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines as a category 8 exemption.
The City Water Board reviewed this ordinance at its January 22, 2003 regular meeting and recommended
adoption of the ordinance by the City Council.
January 29, 2003, 8:03AM
S:~003 ADMIN RPTS\FE 12WT1HGdot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
ITEM: 8. fl.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
January 16, 2003
~/-~P~F, IOVED
DEPARTMENT HE,~D ~,~'~/
Cl~ MANAGER ~
An ordinance amending Bakersfield Municipal Code Section § 1.12.010, § 1.12.040,
§ 1.12.060 and § 1.12.070 by adding Annexation No. 434 to Ward 4 and portions of
Annexation No. 435 to both Ward 1 and Ward 7 and a portion of Annexation No. 436 to
Ward 6. (Wards 1, 4, 6 and 7).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
This ordinance amends the ward boundaries to include Annexations 434, 435 and 436 into
corresponding Council wards. The annexations were approved by the LAFCO recently.
Annexation No. 434 is located along the west side of Allen Road approximately 1,500 feet
south of Rosedale Highway. The site is undeveloped, however, the owner will construct multi-
family residential on the site. The property owner requested annexation to receive city
services.
Annexation No. 435 is located in two separate areas (1) south of State Route 58, east of
Oswell Street to Sterling Road and (2) at the northeast corner of McKee Road and Wible Road.
The owners requested annexation to receive city services.
Annexation No. 436 is located in two separate areas (1) is along the Stockdale Highway right-
of-way, west of Ashe Road and (2) South of Blomquist Drive to Belle Terrace, west of
McDonald Way. Area 1 is right-of-way only and is not require to be within a Ward boundary.
The property owner of area 2 also wants to receive city services.
MO
(p/admin/jan/1-29-434/435)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8.e.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Ron Fraze, Fire Chief
January 28, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY MANAGER
Ordinances amending Chapter 15.64 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to the
California Fire Code. (All wards)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption.
BACKGROUND: The State has adopted the 2001 Edition of the California Fire Code which is a modified
version of the Uniform Fire Code. The City will be required to follow and enforce it without exception
unless this ordinance is adopted to continue the existing administrative authorities and processes
established in the City. The ability to amend the codes for local conditions is permitted by State law. Not
adopting this ordinance would cause a hardship to the City as well as threaten the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of the City.
The first reading of this ordinance was the January 15, 2003 City Council meeting.
A copy of the code is on file at the City Clerk's office for review.
RH/kec
S:\CORRESPONDENCE~002-11~001 CODE CHANGES & ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT,doc
1/28/2003
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
IAGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8.f.
r
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
RaM M. Rojas, Public Works Director
January 30, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD ,~
CITY MANAGER .~
Resolution' of Intention No. 1290 to add territory, Area 4-26 (Paladino, Masterson NE)'
to the Consolidated Maintenance District, preliminarily adopting, confirming and
approving Public Works Director's Report. (VVard 3)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND: A written request has been received by the City Engineer from the owner of Tentative
Tract No. 6137, to be included in the Consolidated Maintenance District as required by section 13.04.021
of the Municipal Code. Inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District will provide for the maintenance
of a public park and street landscaping. Staff recommends the addition of territory, Area 4-26 (Paladino,
Masterson NE), to the Consolidated Maintenance District. Area 4-26 is generally bounded by a line 1 mile
north of Paladino Drive on the north, Alfred Harrell Highway on the east, Paladino Drive on the south, and
Masterson Street on the west. This area will be under the park and streetscape zones of benefit and will
be assigned appropriate tier levels when a park has been constructed and street landscaping has been
installed.
Staff is recommending the new territory be added to the Consolidated Maintenance District at the next City
Council meeting.
The City of Bakersfield has received a letter from the owner of the property described above which waives
the public hearing concerning inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District. This allows the City to
expedite the maintenance district process, to satisfy the subdivision requirement. The owner also has
submitted a Proposition 218 ballot indicating his consent to the assessments.
In order to provide future property owners with disclosure regarding the inclusion of land in the
Consolidated Maintenance District and the estimated maximum annual cost per equivalent dwelling unit, a
covenant has been drafted and will be supplied to the subdivider/developer to be recorded with the
subdivision map A copy of this covehant is attached for reference.
Ivd
January 29, 2003, 10:07AM
S:\PROJECTS\MAIN D~ST~ADMINRPT~MD4-26Ri03 dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
rAGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
January 25, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD ~OVED
CITY ATTORNEY ~
CITY MANAGER /~
Resolution adding territory, Area 5-08 (Panama, Colony North) to the Consolidated
Maintenance District and confirming the assessments, approving the Public Works
Director's Report and authorizing collection of assessments by the Kern County Tax
Collector. (Ward 7)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND: On January 29, 2003 the Council adopted Resolution of Intention No. 1287 to add
territory, Area 5-08 (Panama, Colony North), to the Consolidated Maintenance District as required by
Section 13.04.021 of the Municipal Code. Inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District will provide
for the maintenance of street landscaping for Parcel Map No. 10927. Area 5-08 is generally bounded by a
line 1/4 mile north of Panama Lane on the north, a line 1/4 mile west of South H Street on the east,
Panama Lane on the south, and Highway 99 on the west. This area will be under the streetscape zone of
benefit and will be assigned the appropriate tier level when street landscaping has been installed.
The addition of this territory to the Consolidated Maintenance District is not prohibited by Proposition 218.
The City of Bakersfield has received letters from the owners of property described above which waive the
public hearing concerning inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District. This allows the City to
expedite the maintenance district process, to satisfy the subdivision requirement. The owners also have
submitted Proposition 218 ballots indicating their consent to the assessments.
In order to provide future property owners with disclosure regarding the inclusion of land in the
Consolidated Maintenance District and the estimated maximum annual cost per equivalent dwelling unit, a
covenant has been drafted and will be supplied to the subdivider/developer to be recorded with any future
subdivision maps. A copy of this covenant is attached for reference.
Lvd
January 21, 2003, 2:29PM
S:\PROJECTS\MAINDISTtADMINRPTtMD5-08Est03 dot
MEETING DATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent
TEM: 8. h.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services ~ Planning
February 3, 2003
~ED
DEPARTMENT HEAD/ ~ ,-
crn' ATTORNEY
CITY MANAG~
Resolution making CEQA Findings and Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change No. 02-0193 tocated east of
State Route 99, north of Panama Lane. (Ward 7)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution certifying the EIR.
BACKGROUND:
Proiect Description:
The project consists of a land Use Element amendment change from LR (Low Density Residential)
on 33.95 acres and OS-P (Open Space-Park) on 3 acres to GC (General Commercial) on 34.5
acres. The concurrent zone change is proposed to change the zoning from MH (Mobile Home) and
C-2 (Commercial) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) on 37.52 acres. The proposed
development is a 380,000 square foot mixed use commercial shopping center. The proposed
major tenants are Wal-Mart and Lowe's. On December 19, 2002, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 157-02 recommending certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Repod for General Plan Amendment and concurrent Zone Change #02-0193.
As required by State law, certification of the EIR must occur prior to action on the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change. By separate action listed under Hearings, staff is recommending
denial of the appeal and approval of the General Plan Amendment and concurrent Zone Change
(File No. 02-0193).
Analysis:
The EIR focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed project. If
a significant adverse impact results from the project, mitigation measures are recommended to
avoid the impact or reduce the levels of impact to less than significant. The EIR discusses
potential impacts to resources listed below and if applicable, recommends mitigation measures. If
the GPA/ZC were to be approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required for
air quality and noise impacts because these impacts can not be reduced to less than significant
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page2
levels. A Statement of Overriding Considerations finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the
unmitigated impacts of the project.
Other matters considered in the EIR include:
· Aesthetics/Light and Glare: Mitigation measures recommended.
· Public Health and Safety; No mitigation necessary.
· Traffic and Circulation: Mitigation measures recommended.
· Biological Resources: Mitigation measures recommended.
· Cultural Resources: Mitigation measures recommended.
The Final EIR has incorporated and/or responded to all comments made at the public hearing and
in correspondence received during the legally defined public review period. As a result of the initial
study, NOP and scoping process, no impacts on agricultural resources, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation
or utilities and service systems are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. These issues
are discussed in Section 10.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this El R.
An EIR is one of many tools the decision-makers should use in determining whether to approve a
project. It is not and should not be the only tool. Other tools include, but are not limited to, the
general plan, zoning criteria, agency input, public input, staff analysis and decision makers
opinions. Because a certified EIR can be a valuable resource for future environmental
documentation, staff request the document be certified regardless of the project status.
Cer[ification of an EIR does not prejudice an action on the project itself.
In accordance with local CEQA Implementation Procedures, the Planning Commission held a
hearing on October 3, 2002 to receive testimony regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Complete responses are shown in Section 14.0 of the Final EIR.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR has been prepared to consist
of:
The Draft EIR;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR during the review period either
verbatim or in summary;
A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process.
The CEQA Guidelines provide the following direction regarding "standards for adequacy of an
EIR:"
The Draft EIR was sent to the City Council on September 16, 2002 and the comments with
responses constituting the Final EIR were sent on December 5, 2002.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page3
CEQA Guideline Section 15151:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with
information, which enables them to make a decision, which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project
need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the tight of what is
reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR
should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked
not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 indicates that the lead agency (City of Bakersfield) shall certify
that:
(a) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
(b)
The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency and that the
decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR
prior to approving the project.
Public Notice:
The comment period on the EIR has ended. The City of Bakersfield provided two public hearings
in the EIR process. Certification of the EtR is not a public hearing.
The following is a chronology of the public meetings and opportunities for the public and agencies
to comment on the environmental document.
July 17, 2002
Notice of Preparation (NOP)/ Initial Study sent to the State Clearinghouse
(SCH# 20022071051), local agencies and property owners within 300 feet of
the project site. Notice of public scoping meeting held August 1, 2002.
August1,2002
Planning Commission held a scoping session during a public hearing to
receive comments regarding the Initial Study and NOP. Under State
Guidelines, this is an optional hearing that the City elects to provide for
public input.
September 13, 2002
Public notice of availability of Draft EIR sent. Notice of Completion sent to
State Clearinghouse which began the required 45-day public review ended
October 28, 2002.
October 3, 2002 Public hearing to take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
December 6, 2002
Public hearing notice regarding related General Plan Amendment and
concurrent zone change sent to property owners within 300 feet of project
site and to interested parties. Notice sent to those persons/agencies making
comment on the EIR stating the Final EIR is available.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page4
Appeal:
The public comment period on the EIR closed on October 28, 2002. Responses to comments
received after October 28, 2002 are not required, unless the comment provides evidence of
significant impact not evaluated in the EIR. The appellant's letter contained a list of several issues
related to the EIR. For informational purposes only staff has prepared the following.
· Issue: Provide accurate traffic study. The entrances are inadequate.
Staff Remarks: The Traffic Study was prepared by Ruettgers and Schuler, Civil Engineers,
experienced in preparing traffic studies in conformance with traffic engineering standards. The
study was reviewed and accepted by the City's Public Works Traffic Engineer and CalTrans.
Mitigation measures, including construction of street improvements based on approved designs,
coordination of signals and payment of improvement fees, are incorporated into the project to
reduce traffic impacts to less than significant levels. The applicant has agreed to these mitigation
measures as conditions of approval on the project.
· issue: Cultural resources study inadequate because Jt did not address Native American history,
the correct aboriginal population and existence of cultural sites.
Staff Remarks: Robed A. Schiffman, prepared an archeological investigation for the project. Mr.
Schiffman is a professional archeologist with over 30 years of local experience. The report
included research to determine if there were archeological resources within the study area and if
so, evaluate them; assess the potential to yield significant cultural information; and if needed,
developer guidelines to reduce impacts to these resources. Mr. Schiffman consulted with the
California Historical Resources Information System (CSUB) and determined no cultural resources
were found on the project site and that it would be unlikely that significant cultural resources
would be found in the future.
Through the review procedure required under CEQA, the EIR was sent to the California Native
American Heritage Commission for comment. The Commission did not submit any comment and
did not contact City staff.
The appellant states that the EIR mis-characterizes the history of the Native Americans and
references a treaty signed on June 10, 1851 between the United States government and 29 tribal
leaders. The appellant request that a Native American monitor be on site during ground disturbing
activities. The study prepared by Mr. Schiffman determined that the potential for discovering
cultural resources on the project site would be remote. However, a mitigation measure requiring
the developer to contact a qualified archeologist if human remains are uncovered applies to the
project. Recovery of any remains are required to be under the direction of the Corner pursuant to
Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains.
Should the coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
· Issue: Biological resources study is inadequate because the areas is known habitat for blunt-
nosed leopard lizard, kit fox and burrowing owl.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page5
Staff Remarks: The project must comply with the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated permits from federal and state wildlife agencies. Paul Pruett
and Associates prepared the Biota Report. This consultant has extensive local experience in
preparing such studies. The study and EIR includes specific mitigation measures to reduce the
impact to less than significant on sensitive species that occur within the project site. The
applicant has agreed to comply with the mitigation measures.
Conclusion:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend certification of the Final EIR for GPA/ZC #02-
0193.
JENG
S:pam~adrnin~-12-0193-eir
MEETING DATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent
TEM: R.~i,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
February 3, 2003
ED
DEPARTMENTHEAD,/,~¢~-~/~
CiTY A-i-rORNEY~-~
ClTY MANAGER
Resolution making CEQA Findings and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for General Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change No. 02-0030
located adjacent on the west side Gosford Road, between Pacheco Road and Harris Road.
(Ward 5)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution certifying the Final EIR.
BACKGROUND:
Proiect Description:
Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has proposed to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan
Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use map designation from SI (Service
Industrial) to GC (General Commercial) on 78 gross acres. There is also a concurrent proposal to
change the zoning from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial
Development) on 73.53 net acres. The P.C.D. proposal involves the development of approximately
700,000 square feet of various retail commercial and service uses, anchored by several major "big-
box" retail tenants. The major anchor buildings would comprise a total of approximately 634,000
square feet. Several smaller pads for retail businesses would comprise a total of approximately
53,000 square feet. Additionally, several small pads for fast-food businesses are proposed,
comprising a total of approximately 12,500 square feet.
On December 19, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 158-02 recommending
certification of the Final Environmental Impact report for GPA/ZC 02-0030. As required by State
law, certification of the Final EIR must occur prior to approval of the General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change. By separate action listed under Hearings, staff is recommending denial of the
appeal addressed below and approval of the General Plan Amendment and concurrent Zone
Change (File GPA/ZC No. 02-0030).
Analysis:
The EIR focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed project. If
a significant adverse impact results from the project, mitigation measures are recommended to
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2
avoid the impact or reduce the levels of impact to less than significant. The Final EIR discusses
impacts to the following resources listed below and if applicable recommends mitigation measures.
Biological Resources (mitigation measures recommended)
Cultural Resources (mitigation measures recommended)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (mitigation measures recommended)
Noise (mitigation measures recommended)
Transportation and Traffic (mitigation measures recommended)
Air Quality (mitigation measures recommended and Statement
Considerations)
of Overriding
If the GPA/ZC were to be approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required
for air quality because the impact can not be reduced to less than significant levels. A Statement
of Overriding Considerations finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unmitigated impacts
of the project.
An EIR is one of many tools the decision-makers should use in determining whether to approve a
project. It is not and should not be the only tool. Other tools include, but are not limited to, the
general plan, zoning criteria, agency input, public input, staff analysis and decision makers
opinions.
Because a certified EIR can be a valuable resource for future environmental documentation, staff
request that unless clear evidence is submitted which indicates the EIR does not comply with
CEQA, the document should be certified regardless of the project status. Certification of an EIR
does not prejudice an action on the project itself.
The Final EIR has incorporated and/or responded to all comments about it made at the public
hearing and in correspondence received during the legally defined public review period. As a
result of the NOP, scoping process, and review period, no impacts on aesthetics, agricultural
resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral
resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
In accordance with local CEQA Implementation Procedures, the Planning Commission held a
hearing on October 3, 2002, to receive testimony regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The
responses to comments are provided in the Final EIR.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR has been prepared to consist
of:
1. The Draft EIR;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR during the review period either
verbatim or in summary.
3. A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
The responses of the City of Bakersfield to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 3
The CEQA Guidelines provide the following direction regarding "standards for adequacy of an
EIR:"
CEQA Guideline Section 15151:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with
information, which enables them to make a decision, which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project
need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is
reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR
should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked
not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 indicates that the Council of the City of Bakersfield shall certify
that:
(a) The final EtR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
(b)
The final EIR was presented to the Council of the City of Bakersfield and that the City
Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to
approving the project.
In accordance with CEQA Guideline Sections 15151 and 15090, the Final EIR has been prepared
to be a complete and good faith effort at full disclosure; and is completed in compliance with
CEQA. The draft EIR was transmitted to the City Council on September 6, 2002 on and the Final
EIR followed on January 28, 2003.
Public Notice:
The comment period on the EIR has ended. The City of Bakersfield provided two public hearings in
the EIR process. A public hearing is not required for certification of the Final EIR.
The following is a chronology of the public meetings and opportunities for the public and agencies
to comment on the environmental document.
May 31, 2002
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent to the State Clearinghouse
(SCH# 2002051156) and local agencies. Property owners within 300 feet of
the project site were notified of the public scoping meeting to be held on
June 20, 2002, and the availability of the NOP.
June 20,2002
Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting to receive comments on
the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report.
September 3, 2002 -
October 17, 2002 Public review and comment period.
October 3, 2002
Public hearing held to accept testimony on Draff EIR. A notice for the public
hearing and availability of the Draft EIR was published in the local
newspaper on September 3, 2002.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page4
Appeal:
December 2, 2002
Public hearing notice regarding related General Plan Amendment and
concurrent Zone Change was sent to property owners within 300 feet of
project site and to interested parties. Notice was also sent to those
persons/agencies that submitted comments, with said notice indicating the
availability of the Final EIR.
The public comment period for the EIR opened on September 3, 2002 and closed on October 17,
2002. Responses to comments received after October 17, 2002, are not required unless new
substantial evidence is provided regarding significant impacts not evaluated in the EIR. An appeal
letter regarding the EIR was submitted by Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control after the close of
the review period (see Exhibit 4). The letter contains a list of issues related to the EIR; however,
none of the information submitted provides new substantial evidence regarding significant impacts
from the project. For informational purposes, staff has prepared the following explanation of how
those issues have been addressed:
Issue: Provide accurate traffic study. The volume of traffic was underestimated in the study.
Staff Remarks: The Traffic Study was prepared by Mclntosh and Associates, Civil Engineers,
experienced in preparing traffic studies in conformance with traffic engineering standards. The
study was reviewed and accepted by the City's Public Works Traffic Engineer. Mitigation
measures, including construction of street improvements based on approved designs, coordination
of signals and payment of improvement fees, are incorporated into the project to reduce traffic
impacts to less than significant levels. The applicant has agreed to these mitigation measures as
conditions of approval for the project. No new evidence has been submitted indicating that the
traffic volumes in the study are incorrect.
Issue: Local schools were not properly noticed and solicited for the project.
Staff Remarks: During the noticed 45-day public review period, the Draft EIR for GPA/ZC 02-0030
was sent to the Kern County Superintendent of Schools and the School District Facility Services.
Both agencies act as a clearinghouse for local schools within the City of Bakersfield for reviewing
environmental documents.
Issue: Cultural resources study inadequate because it did not address Native American history,
the correct aboriginal population, and the existence of cultural sites.
Staff Remarks: Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates prepared a Phase I Cultural Resource
Survey for the project. Scott M. Hudlow is a professional archeologist with years of local
experience. The report included research to determine if there were archeological resources within
the study area and if so, evaluate them; assess the potential to yield significant cultural information;
and if needed, develop guidelines to reduce impacts to these resources. Hudlow Cultural
Resource Associates consulted with the California Historical Resources Information System
(CSUB) and performed a Phase I cultural resource survey consisting of an on-site survey and
record search of the site. No archaeological resources were found or identified on the project site.
The assessment reported that that no further work was required regarding cultural resources. In
addition, the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse, reviewed by the Native American
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page5
Heritage Commission, who repoded no problems with the Draft EIR or the mitigation measures.
No new evidence has been submitted that would indicate that the Phase I Cultural Resource
Survey was inadequate.
The appellant states that the EIR mis-characterizes the history of the Native Americans and
references a treaty signed on June 10, 1851 between the United States government and 29 tribal
leaders. With regard to the 1851 treaty, this is a land title issue, as opposed to an environmental
issue. The appellant request that e Native American monitor be on site during ground disturbing
activities. The study prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates determined that the
potential for discovering cultural resources on the project site would be remote. However,
mitigation measures requiring the developer to contact a qualified archaeologist, if cultural
resources or human remains are discovered, applies to the project for assessing the significance of
any find. The discovery of human remains would prohibit any further work until the Kern County
Corner is contacted, pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If
Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code
and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions required. The
Native American Heritage Commission would be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98
· Issue: Biological resources study is inadequate because the areas is known habitat for blunt-
nosed leopard lizard and San Joaquin kit fox.
Staff Remarks: The project must comply with the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and associated permits from federal and state wildlife agencies. In addition,
M.H. Wolfe and Associates prepared the Biota Report for the project. The consultant has extensive
local experience in preparing such studies. The assessment reports that no signs of the San
Joaquin kit fox were found and that the project site, which is a fallow carrot field, provides no
habitat for the Blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The study and EIR includes specific mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to less than significant on sensitive species that may occur on the
project site. The applicant has agreed to comply with the mitigation measures.
Conclusion:
The Planning Commission has recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report for GPA/ZC 02-0030.
WC
S:pam\admin~2-12-0030-eir
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
TEM: 8.,'j.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
January 22, 2003
,~I:~VED
CITY MANAGER
A Resolution of Application proposing proceedings for annexation of uninhabited territory to
the City of Bakersfield property identified as Annexation No. 440 & 441 located along the
west side of Gosford Road, south of Panama Lane to McCutchen Road and along the west
side of Allen Road, north of Noriega Road. (Wards 4 & 5)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The resolution of application proposes proceedings for annexation of uninhabited territory,
identified as Annexation No. 440 and Annexation No. 441, to the City of Bakersfield. The
proposed annexation consists of approximately 300 acres of uninhabited land located along the
west side of Gosford Road, south of Panama Lane to McCutchen Road and along the west
side of Allen Road, north of Noriega Road.
The property owners of each of the annexation territories have consented to annexation. The
owners want to receive city services.
MO:pit
p:adm in'feb\2-12-440
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8. k.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
February 4, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD AP~_____~VED
CITY A'I-I'O RN EY~--'~q-''
CITY MANAGER(`''/ ~
Demolition of improvements for the Bakersfield Senior Housing Project Center on the
north side of 5th Street, east of R Street (Ward 1 ):
1. Contract Change Order No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-284 (Demolition of improvements
at 612 5th Street) with Irwin Excavation in the amount of $8,500.
Contract Change Order No. 2 to Agreement No. 02-284 (Demolition of improvements
at 500 "R" Street) with Irwin Excavation in the amount of $6,500.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these Contract Change Orders.
BACKGROUND: This pro ect consists of demolishing and removing existing property improvements at
508 R Street and 618 5 Street, as well as other ex st ng property ~mprovements ~n the area of 5 and
"R" Streets to facilitate the construction of the new Bakersfield Senior Housing Center.
During the course of this project, the Economic and Community Development Department (EDCD)
informed the Public Works Department that the contractor hired to move the houses located at 500 "R"
Street and 612 5th Street had defaulted on their contract. EDCD then requested to have the houses and
their foundations at 612 5~ Street and 500 "R" Street removed under a change order to the demolition
contract. The removal of these houses in a timely manner is necessary in order to meet the deadline for
obtaining grant money for the construction of the new Senior Center Project.
The contractor has agreed to remove the house and foundation located at 612 5th Street for the lump sum
price of $8,500. This work is covered in Contract Change Order No. 1. The contractor has also agreed
to remove the house and foundation located at 500 "R" Street for the lump sum price of $6,500. This
work is covered in Contract Change Order No. 2. Acceptance of these change orders will amend the
total contract price to $45,000. Sufficient funds are available to fund these change orders.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
I ITEM: R_ 1 _
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
January 22, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
Relocation of the Friant-Kem Canal at the intersection of Olive Drive and Calloway Drive
(Ward 4):
1. Contract Change Order No. 2 to Agreement No. 02-334 with Vadnais Corporation in
the amount of $239,280 (for a total contract amount of $3,588,355.36).
2. Appropriate $60,000 Sewer Enterprise Fund balance to the Capital Improvement
Budget for sewer main improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Contract Change Order and appropriation.
BACKGROUND: This Change Order provides for the extension of a 12" water main at the request of the
City Water Resources Department. Prior to the canal relocation, water for fire flows and domestic use
"dead ended" on each side of the Friant-Kern and Calloway Canals. By extending the water main to
connect these ends, the water main network will be looped providing a safer and more reliable source for
fire flows and domestic use. The contractor has agreed to a lump sum price of $31,680 to do this work.
As a result of relocating the Friant-Kern Canal, a significant length of Calloway Drive is isolated from
sewer service. In order to provide sewer service along Calloway Drive and to avoid future lane closures,
traffic detours, or pavement patching for the installation of sewer main and manholes, staff requested a
price from the contractor to add this work to the contract. The contractor has agreed to a lump sum price
of $60,000 to do this work.
Calloway Drive over the relocated Friant-Kern Canal was intended to go back as a two lane road. In order
to minimize future lane closures and traffic control, staff requested a price from the contractor to do the
earthwork portion of the ultimate roadway with this project. The cost for doing this work is estimated to be
$147,600.
The total cost of this Change Order is $239,280, bringing the total contract amount to $3,588,355.36. The
water main improvements portion ($31,280) can be funded with existing capital improvement funds within
the Domestic Enterprise Fund. An appropriation is required to fund the sewer main improvements
($60,000) within the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Sufficient project funds are available to fund the remainder of
this change order.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8.m.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
January 29, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD ~/)/~_PROVED
CITY ATTORNEY~
CITY MANAGER
Amendment No. I ($24,000 for a total not to exceed compensation clause of $69,000) to
Consultant Agreement No. 02-281 with Maurice Etchechury for project management of
Fdant-Kem Canal Relocation, Calloway Canal Culvert and Calloway Drive/Olive Drive
Intersection Construction. (VVard 4)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Amendment.
BACKGROUND: The Scope of Work for the original agreement was limited to only the Friant-kern Canal
Relocation. The City has reached agreements with other agencies and developers regarding the
Calloway Canal Culvert under Olive Drive and the pavement reconstruction in the Calloway Drive/Olive
Drive intersection. Therefore, this amendment is needed to provide the necessary project management
for these additional projects which are related to the original project.
Amendment No. 1 adds $24,000 to the total compensation amount, bringing the total contract amount to
$69,000. Funds are available to cover this increased cost.
ADR PW/Desi§n E~gineering
January 29, 2003, 2:59PM
G:\GROUPDAT~AE)MINRPT~2003\02.12~Amend 1 to 02-281 Admin dot
MEETING DATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Februaw 12,2003
AGENDA SECTION:
ITEM: 8.n.
Consent Calendar
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager
January 15, 2003
CITY MANAGER
Occupancy License Agreements with San Joaquin Valley Railroad to allow underground
domestic water pipeline crossings (Ward No.6)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of agreements.
BACKGROUND:
These agreements with the San Joaquin Valley Railroad will allow the City to operate and maintain
underground water pipelines to be installed under the railroad in the vicinity of Pacheco Road at Mountain
Vista Drive and at Old River Road. The work will consist of boring and installing 24" metal casings as a
conduit for the placement of the 12" C-900 pvc water mains at a minimum coverage depth of 5.5 ft. The
water mains are necessary to extend the existing domestic water service mains to the south for a new
residential development referred to as Tract 6104, consisting of 147 acres. The developer of the said Tract
is responsible for the installation of the underground crossings. The City of Bakersfield will take over
operation and maintenance after dedication of the facility to the City. The City of Bakersfield is required to
maintain an insurance policy naming the San Joaquin Valley Railroad as the certificate holder. There is no
cost to the City of Bakersfield for this license agreement.
January 23, 2003, 8:31AM
S:\2003 AOMIN RPTS\SANJOAQUINVALLEYRAILROAD21203 docS:~003 AOMIN RPTS\SANJOAQUINVALLEYRAILROAD21203.doc
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: Februar~ 12, 2003
ITEM: 8.0.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
APPROVED
Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
Janua~ 29,2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
Agreements with North Kern Water Storage District for Olive Drive bridge over Calloway
Canal Project: (~4a~:d 4)
1)
2)
3)
Road Easement Agreement ($35,000)
Storm Drain and Water Line License Agreement (not to exceed $5,000)
Nuisance Water License Fee Agreement (not to exceed $2,000)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Agreements
BACKGROUND: in conjunction with construction of the box culvert project, the City is required to enter
into several Agreements with the North Kern Water Storage District. All costs associated with the
Agreements are paid for by project funds.
January 29, 2003, 11:23AM
G:\GROUPDAT~ADMINRPT~2003\02-12\No Kern Agmts Admin dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
IAGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
January 29, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD .J//~
CITY ATTORNEY '~./~-~
ClTY MANAGER ~
Transportation Impact Fee Agreement (Ward 4):
1. Transportation Impact Fee Agreement with Vista Finestra I, LLC for Tract 6012, located
nodh of Stockdale Highway, adjacent to Renfro Road (Impact fee credit not to exceed
$66,108 and reimbursement amount of $45,995).
2. Transfer $45,995 of appropriations within the Gas Tax Fund's Capital Improvement
Budget to fund reimbursement to developer for costs to landscape median islands along
a specific section of Renfro Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of agreement and transfer.
BACKGROUND: Vista Finestra will construct a portion of Renfro Road north of Stockdale Highway in
association with their Tract 6012. Transportation Impact Fee credit is available for one southbound lane
on this portion of Renfro Road. Vista Finestra has requested that all of the Transportation Impact Fee
credit be applied to lots within Tract 6012. The maximum credit available is $66,108.
The median islands on Renfro Road, north of Stockdale Highway, require landscaping. The developer
would be required to pay his proportionate share of the landscaping costs in median fees. The developer
will construct the landscaped medians in lieu of paying these median fees. Since the developer will incur
costs greater than his proportionate share, this agreement provides reimbursement ($45,995) for the
portion for which he is not responsible. Approximately 25% of the reimbursement amount will be collected
from new tracts to be developed along Renfro Road. The remainder is the responsibility of the City.
DC Engr.
January 30, 2003, 4:03PM
G:\G ROUPDAT'C, DMIN R pT~2.003\02-12~Tr6012TIFagr doc
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8.q.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
January 30, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD AP/~,OVED
CITY ATTORNEY ~
CITY MANAGER ~
Transportation Impact Fee Agreement with Stonecreek Partners, Inc. for Tract 6124
(Estimated Impact Fee Credit - $117,661), located on Wible Road north of McKee Road.
(Ward 4)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of agreement.
BACKGROUND: Stone Creek Partners, Inc. has constructed a portion of Wibte Road between McKee
Road and Sierra Meadows Drive with their Tract 6124. Of the improvements constructed by Stonecreek
Partners, one south bound lane of Wible Road is listed on the Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List.
Stonecreek Partners has requested that all of the transportation impact fee credit available from this
improvement be applied to lots within Tract 6124. The credit available is estimated at $117,661.
January 31, 2003, 7:45AM
G:\G ROUPDAT~ADMINR PT~.003~02-12\6124TIFadrnin.dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
TEM:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
(1)
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul M Rojas, Public Works Director
January 27, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD¢
C~TY ATTORNEY~
CITY MANAGER
Tract Maps/Improvement Agreements
Final Map and Improvement Agreements with Stone Creek Partners, Inc. for Tract 6124
Phase 1 located north of McKee Road and east of Wible Road. (Ward 7)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends approval of the maps and agreements.
BACKGROUND:
These Agreements are entered into to secure the improvements required for the
Subdivision Map. Such improvements include, but are not limited to streets, sewer,
storm drain, and landscaping on or adjacent to the properly being subdivided.
td
NOTE: THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
ARE FILED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FOR REVIEW.
January 27, 2003, 8:49AM
G:t. GROUPDA'RAOMINRPT~2003\02-12~MAP AND IMPROVEMENT AGR.dot
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8. s.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager
January 30, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD /~.
CITY ATTORNEY ~
CITY MANAGER
Agreement with the County of Kern for Internet Provider Services for $18,398 annually
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The County of Kern has established multi-year contracts for Internet Service Provider services with Time
Warner Telecom (primary provider) and Arrival Communications (secondary provider). Both of those
companies provide high-speed data connections to the County. The County has excess capacity on the
data connections and is willing to sell a portion of the capacity to the City.
Currently, the City contracts with Earthlink for high-speed data communication and has no secondary
source of data connection. Thus, when Earthlink's system goes down, the City has no access to the
internet
Sharing the County's high-speed connection will serve two purposes. First, it will save the City money.
Beginning in March, Earthlink proposes to charge the City approximately $3000 per month ($36,000
annually) for an intemet connection. If this Agreement is approved, instead the City will spend
approximately $1533 per month ($18,398 annually), as the cost is shared with the County. The reduced
rate will save the City $17,702 annually. Second, the contract with County of Kern will increase the
reliability of the high-speed connection since, if the Time Warner connection fails, the Arrival system will
serve as a back-up.
The City is already connected to the County via fiber optic cable, so there will be no expense associated
with connecting to the County system. And the connection with Time Warner Telecom and Arrival
Communications will provide the same speed and reliability as our current connection with Earthlink.
The agreement with County can be terminated at any time with 90 days prior notice. The existing rates
the County is charged by Time Warner Telecom and Arrival Communications are effective through June
2005. If there rates were to rise at that time, the County would propose go out to bid for those services.
The City Council would then have the option of accepting the new rates by approving a new agreement
with the County or pursuing other options. If this agreement with the County is approved, the Earthlink
contract will be terminated.
February 3, 2003, 2:24PM
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
IAGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8. t.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director
January 30, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CiTY ATTORNEY'/~
CITY MANAGER
Rescind award to Coalinga Motors, Incorporated, $111,749.14, for seven (7) midsize
sedans.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends rescinding award to Coalinga Motors, Incorporated.
BACKGROUND: At the meeting of November 6, 2002, City Council accepted a bid from Coalinga Motors,
Incorporated. When the vehicles were received at the dealership, prior to City acceptance, it was
discovered they did not meet the specifications as bid because the seats were not split bench. The
vendor then attempted to provide the seat as required but was unable to do so.
Purchasing Division
DW:Ijm
P:~ADMIN~003 ADMIN\C03_0212 A_Midsize Sedans RESCIND AWARD.doc
January 30, 2003, 12:05PM
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
rAGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8. u.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director
January 30, 2003
APPROVED
DEPARTMENTHEAD ~'/./~.
o,TY A ORN /'
CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT:
Accept bid to award annual contract to Jim AIfter, Cement Contractor, not to exceed
$66,000.00, for canal liner repair.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of bid and award of contract.
BACKGROUND: This contract is used to repair concrete portions of the City's carrier and river canals.
Invitations to bid were sent to seven (7) vendors. Four (4) bids were received. The lowest bid was
submitted by the current supplier, Jim Alfter, Cement Contractor.
Purchasing Division
DW:Ijm
P:~ADMIN~2003 ADMIN\C03_0212_C AC Canal Liner Repair doc
January 30, 2003, 3:30PM
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
I ITEM: 8.v.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director
January 30, 2003
AP, PROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD~..~
CITY ATI'ORNEY ~
CITY MANAGER /~
SUBJECT:
Accept bids to award annual contracts to Groeniger & Company, not to exceed
$180,000.00, and Badger Meter, Incorporated, not to exceed $75,000.00, for water meters.
Total $255,000.00
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of bids and award of contracts.
BACKGROUND: These contracts provide for the purchase of water meters for commercial and
residential use in the City. Invitations to bid were sent to four (4) vendors. Two (2) bids were received.
The Water Resources Department estimates the quantities and types of meters that may be required for
the upcoming year. Actual quantities are not known until the need arises.
Unit prices were compared to determine the Iow bidder, and the City can best be served by awarding two
(2) contracts, with nine (9) items awarded to Groeniger & Company, and three (3) items awarded to
Badger Meter, incorporated.
Purchasing Divfsion
DW:ljm
P:~ADMIN~003 ADMIN\C03 0212 B AC Water Meters,doc
January 30, 2003, 3:19PM
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
ITEM: 8.w.
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager
January 31, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATrORNEY
ClTY MANAGER
Approve purchase of Novell Software licenses not to exceed $136,000.
APPROVED
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
BACKGROUND:
The network operating system software that the City uses is supplied by the Novell Corporation. The
annual software licensing is required to support our e-Mail, file services, print services as well as the
City's internet firewall, and is licensed per computer workstation or e-mail address. The licensing under
this purchase will bring the City of Bakersfield to a current status through June 30, 2003.
The Software licensing from Novell has been bid by both the State of California through the State Store
process and the City of Los Angeles and is available from Compucom at the 53.6% Los Angeles
discount. If the City were to formally bid out these license fees the result would not be lower than the
53% discount offered through the Los Angeles bid.
At the direction of the City Council, staff explored options for reducing the cost of network licenses. First,
we contacted Novell directly to request a discounted price for licenses. They declined to offer an
additional price reduction and stated that the discounted price the City is paying is the lowest that Novell
offer to any of their commercial or government customers and matches that given to the Federal
Government.
Second, staff evaluated the feasibility of switching to a different software vendor for network services.
Unfortunately, the Novell software is so integrated with other software and hardware that switching would
require us to purchase additional equipment and software. For instance, switching to a Windows
networking environment would require us to purchase 2 Windows network computer servers ($20,000), 2
firewall computers ($40,000), 2 email computers servers ($30,000) and a filter computer ($15,000)
totaling $105,000 in hardware costs alone. After combining hardware costs with Windows networking
software and technical training for our IT staff to maintain a Windows network, the total cost would
greatly exceed the $136,000 purchase for Novell licenses.
Based upon the analysis outlined above, staff concludes that the Novell software bid provides the best
product at the best price and recommends approval of the purchase.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM: 8. x.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
APPROVED
Alan Tandy, City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD
February 6, 2003 CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER '~''
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-338 (Memorandum of Understanding between
City of Bakersfield and Assistance League of Bakersfield)
(Ward Two)
the
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of an Amendment to the Agreement with the Assistance League of
Bakersfield.
BACKGROUND:
The City and Assistance League of Bakersfield entered into an agreement under which the City will obtain
a parking lot north of 13rh Street from the Assistance League of Bakersfield in exchange for the Harper
property, which is at the corner of O and California Streets. The City will build the new aquatic complex
and ice rink, partially on the land that is acquired from the Assistance League. The Redevelopment
Agency is moving ahead with the acquisition of the Harper property. It has, unfortunately, taken more time
than we had hoped in the judicial process.
In the interest of servicing the public, we are now in a difficult situation. The work on the ice rink
construction must begin soon if it is to open for the next skating season. Hundreds of users need to know
construction will begin, and if youth practices and games will take place in the fall. Many Bakersfield
parents and their children are driving to Valencia daily until the ice rink opens here. $500,000 has been
donated to this project by citizens of our community.
The attorney for the Assistance League has pointed out that judicial decisions are never 100% certain and
that, in theory, the Agency's efforts to acquire the property could be stopped in court. Staff does not
believe that will be the case, but we acknowledge the theoretical possibility.
The proposed Amendment to the Agreement provides additional security to the Assistance League if the
City fails to acquire title to the Harper property within six (6) months. If that scenario were to occur, the
League would have the option to: 1) be paid cash by the City for the appraised market value of their
property, or 2) the City will convey other City property as compensation for their parking lot, as identified
in the Amendment to the Agreement.
February 6, 2003, 4:59PM
P:~,dminReports&Related~Adm -2003~Admin-Aquatic-AssistanceLeague_020603.doc
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2
Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the Agreement, so that the new aquatic and ice facility
can move forward without delay. This does not add to the cost of the project for the City. It is, instead, a
back-up plan for worst case assumptions that will make the League more comfortable in turning over their
property.
This is a minor action to us, since the base agreement is likely to prevail. It is important to the project that
it be approved on February 12th, however!
rks
February 6, 2003, 4:59PM
P:~AdminReports&Related~Adm-2003~Admin-Aquatic-AssistanceLeague_020603.doc
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Hearing
ITEM: 9.a.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney
February 4, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY A'I-rORNEY
CITY MANAGER
Ordinance amending Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.69
Entertainment Businesses Separation and Distance Requirements
APPROVED
related t¢ Adult
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.69 regulates the establishment and location of Adult
Entertainment Businesses. Case law interpreting the United States Constitution requires that the
separation and distance requirements adopted by a local public entity allow for a sufficient number of
available sites so as to not impair the exercise of First Amendment activity. Currently,
Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.69.040 requires a 1500 foot separation between a potential adult
entertainment business and property zoned for residential use, a school (excluding a vocational school or
college), a developed park or public playground, any public library, and any church or other religious
facility which people regularly attend to hold religious services. In 1999, a survey was conducted by staff
which showed that no fewer than 10 available sites existed in the City.
The City Council recently denied an appeal of a site plan to locate an adult entertainment business
because it was proposed to be located within 950 feet of a residential neighborhood. The proposed
location was not in compliance with City ordinances, and the denial of the appeal was appropriate. During
the course of receiving testimony on the appeal, litigation was threatened on several aspects of the City's
adult entertainment business regulations.
The City Council, as a prudent response to these threats, directed the City Attorney to very
carefully check whether our codes were in full compliance with mandates of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Staff conducted field surveys and an analysis of changed circumstances (due to annexations, new
schools, changes in land uses, new development, new residential areas, etc.). This updated information
showed fewer available sites than had previously been the case. These results were reviewed by the City
Attorney, a consulting specialist attorney with expertise in this field, and the National Obscenity Law
Center, a national advocacy group dedicated to the prevention of obscenity. Based upon the unanimous
opinion of these three legal sources, the number of potential available sites must be increased. After
reviewing numerous alternatives, the reduction of the separation and distance requirements from 1500
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
feet to 1000 feet, which is the Kern County standard, and which was previously the City's standard, has
been determined to be the most appropriate means to ensure the City's continued compliance with the
U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Further, for the immediate preservation of the public health, peace, property
and safety, it is recommended this modification be adopted as an emergency ordinance so it will be
effective immediately upon adoption. A two-thirds approval vote is required to adopt an emergency
ordinance in accordance with Section 23 of the Charter.
In accordance with the Municipal Code, a notice of this hearing was published in The Bakersfield
Californian at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance as an
emergency ordinance.
February 4, 2003, 5:02PM
S:ICQUNCIL~Admins~,d ultE m 17.69Amend doc
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Hearing
TEM:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
February 5, 2003
DEPARTMENT HE~_______~/2~,~,
CITY A'I-rORNE~ '
CITY MANAGER
General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0976
Towery Homes has proposed a General Plan Amendment and a zone change from general commercial to
Iow density residential and deletion of a condition of approval from previous GPA 2-91 Segment III and
ZUA 5169 on an adjacent parcel at the southwest corner of Reina Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Ward 4)
Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and adopting the General Plan Amendment to
change land use designations from GC to LR and deletion of "condition of approval number 3" and
"mitigation measure number 2" of previous GPA 2-91 Segment Ill on an adjacent 73.79 acres.
Ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration and amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code and
Zoning Map No. 101-13 from C-2 to R-1 and deleting "condition of approval number 3" and
"mitigation measure number 2" of previous ZUA 5169 on an adjacent 73.79 acres.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration, approving the
general plan amendment, deleting "condition number 3" and "mitigation measure number 2" of
GPA 2-91 Segment III and ZUA 5169, and first reading of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Towery Homes is initiating construction of a residential subdivision on the southwest corner of
Reina road and Jewetta Avenue. They asked for three things:
To change a 5.88 acre site from commercial to residential. There is considerable vacant
commercial acreage in the general area the conversion doesn't appear to be a problem,
and no issues were identified with this request.
The adjacent 73.79 acre site was limited to 231 dwelling units. The applicant request this
limitation be removed (This is Mitigation Measure No. 2). Removal of the "dwelling cap" will
permit residential developed very similar in intensity to the many tracts under construction
in the area.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2
Condition No. 3 required full improvements to Jewetta Avenue and Reina Road upon the
first subdivision. The applicant requested and Public Works concurred that each
subdivision within this GPA area should only pay for improvements consistent and
proportional to the size of each individual subdivision.
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this General Plan Amendment/Zone
Change and recommended City Council approval on January 16, 2003. No one spoke in
opposition and no issues were identified by other agencies or staff.
p/adm in/feb/2-12-0976
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003
AGENDA SECTION: Hearings
ITEM:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
January 22, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD--.
CITY A'I-rORNEY / '[/¢'~""
MANACER
General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0939 (Ward 4)
Porter-Robertson Engineering has proposed a General Plan Amendment and an ordinance
amendment for 20 acres, located at the northwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road.
Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and adopting the General Plan Amendment
to change land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR
(Suburban Residential) on 20 acres.
Ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration and amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code
and Zoning Map No. 101-35 from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 20
acres.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration, approving the general
plan amendment and first reading of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
This amendment to the general plan would permit the development of single family residential units. The
Planning Commission continued this item from its December 19, 2002, meeting to the January 16, 2003
meeting. The Planning Commission conducted public hearing(s) on this General Plan Amendment/Zone
Change and recommended City Council approval on January 16, 2003. No one was in opposition to the
request and the applicant agreed to all conditions and mitigation for the project.
Staff conducted an initial study and it was determined that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. Therefore, a negative declaration was prepared and posted on November 12, 2002,
in accordance with CEQA.
MO
Ad m in\febk2-12-0939
MEETING DATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
February 12, 2003 AGENDA SECTION: Hearings
ITEM: 9.d.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
February 5, 2003
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
SUBJECT: Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 02-0193 (Ward 7)
Panama 99 Properties LLC has proposed to amend the general plan on the east side of State
Route 99, north of Panama Lane.
Resolution Making Findings, Denying the Appeal and Adopting proposed Amendment to
the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan by changing the land
use map designation from LR (Low Density Residential) on 33.95 acres and OS-P(Open
Space-Park) on 3 acres to GC (General Commercial) on 34.5 acres.
An Ordinance Amending Section 17.06.020 (Zone Map No 123-24) of Title Seventeen of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code by Changing the zoning from an MH (Mobile Home) zone to
PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 37.5 acres generally located on the
east side of State Route 99, north of Panama Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denying the appeal, adoption of the Resolution and first reading of the
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Proiect Description:
On December 19, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 159-02 and 160-02
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment and concurrent Zone Change #02-0193,
respectively. The recommendation to approve the project was made with a 5-2 vote. The project
consists of a Land Use Element amendment change from LR (Low Density Residential) on 33.95
acres and OS-P (Open Space-Park) on 3 acres to GC (General Commercial) on 34.5 acres. The
concurrent zone change is proposed to change the zoning from MH (Mobile Home) and C-2
(Commercial) to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) on 37.52 acres. The proposed
development is a mixed use commercial shopping center consisting of the following:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2
· Major 1 Building (Wal-mart)
· Lowe's Building
· Building C
· Gas Fueling Station
· Parking Spaces
· Sump
219,622 square feet
134,574 square feet
25,000 square feet
1,939 spaces shown on site plan
Primary access to the site is proposed to be Colony Street from Panama Lane. An additional
access driveway to Panama Lane is located at the southeast corner of the project site. No access
is proposed to the north or east from the project site. State Route 99 bounds the property on the
west.
Analysis:
The Planning Commission recommended a list of 54 conditions of approval that include both
mitigation measures and discretionary conditions of approval covering the issues listed below. The
applicant has agreed to all the conditions and mitigation measures as shown on Exhibit "3."
Aesthetics
Light and Glare
Public Health and Safety
Traffic and Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Open Space (Parks)
Site Plan Review
Mitigation measures are required for air quality and noise impacts but these are the two issues that
could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. The following provides a summary analysis of
these impacts.
Air Quality: An Air Quality Analysis was conducted for the project and the EIR includes several
Mitigation Measures related to short-term and long term emissions. (Refer to Pages 5.4-1 through
5.4-18 of the EIR.) However, implementation of these Mitigation Measures would not reduce levels
for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), and Nitrogen Oxides (NO~). In addition, the Bakersfield area is
a non-attainment area for particulates. If the project were to be approved, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations would be required to be adopted by the decision-making body in
accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Noise: A Noise Study was prepared to evaluate noise impacts as a result of the project. The
project would cause traffic noise levels to increase by 1.5 dB along Panama Lane from Wible Road
to South H Street, for yards of residences not protected by a wall. This increase in noise is
considered to be significant for three existing homes along Panama Lane. Because the impact
occurs on homes where walls cannot be constructed to mitigate the impact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is needed to approve the project. The existing masonry wall along most
of Panama Lane provides a noise reduction of 5dB, which lessens the impact for other sensitive
receptors to less than significant levels
Mitigation Measure 5.5-3 requires a minimum 8-foot high block wall on the north perimeter of the
Wal-Mart building to lessen noise from stationary sources (loading, trash compactors, and air
conditioners) to less than significant levels. (Refer to pages 5.5-1 through 5.5-18 of EIR).
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page3
Condition No. 8 requires the 8-foot high wall extend along the entire north and east boundaries of
the project site.
Statement of Overridinq Considerations. If the project were to be approved, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for air quality and noise impacts would be required to be adopted by the
decision-making body in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. As stated in
Exhibit "5," pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to
balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." As required
by the CEQA Guidelines when a public agency allows for the occurrence of significant effects,
which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall
state in writing the specific reasons the action was supported. Exhibit "4," provides that
documentation.
Planninq Commission Minority Report:
Commissioner Ellison voted not to certify the EIR based on his concerns with traffic and the one
entrance on Panama Lane. In his opinion, the project has the potential for harm and the benefit
does not outweigh the impacts.
Commissioner Tragish also had a dissenting vote with concerns about traffic congestion. He also
was of the opinion that the benefits of the project did not outweigh air pollution and noise impacts,
and did not justify a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Commissioner Tragish stated the east
entrance is inadequate for both tractor trailer trucks and the gas station. It does not comply with air
quality district requirements and the project would compound impacts. There are alternate ways to
develop the property. Commissioner Tragish did not believe that commercial absorption would be
enough reason to approve large projects as unique as this.
Appeal:
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control appealed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
The following summarizes the issues the appellant states in their letter (attached).
· Issue: Lack of economic study and no consideration of economic impact under BMC Section
17.02.030.
Staff Remarks: BMC Section 17.02.030, states the purpose of the zoning ordinance as
implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan, which serve to promote and protect
the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare. The zoning
ordinance is to a) assist in providing a definite plan of development to guide, control and regulated
future growth of the City; and b) protect the established character and the social and economic
stability of agriculture, residential, commercial and industrial and other areas within the City, and to
assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. This section does not require
economic study. However, the applicant submitted two economic-related studies: "Retail Impact
Analysis" prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman and Associates, and "Bakersfield Retail Vacancy and
Absorption 2002 Survey" prepared by Hopper Properties and CB Richard Ellis.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Issue: On three previous occasions, the City refused to rezone this property for commercial
development.
Staff Remarks: Previous applications for commercial development on the project site were
incomplete and the applicants failed to provide the required information and withdrew the
application from further processing.
Issue: 600 residents signed a petition opposing the project.
Staff Remarks: A copy of the correspondence received by staff is on file in the City Clerk's
office. In addition to letters and emails, there were 2 petitions submitted. One petition opposed
access from the shopping center to Maurice Avenue (the residential street on the north border of
the project site). The second petition opposed the project was submitted during the December 19,
2002 Planning Commission meeting.
The applicant presented over two thousand survey comment cards in support of the project.
Devaluation of residential property has not been considered.
Staff Remarks: No evidence has been presented to indicate that the existence of retail
establishments similar to those proposed negatively impacts property values. As it currently exists,
the property is unkempt with dirt roads and paths, non-native vegetation and illegal dumping. The
proposed development includes significant manicured landscape buffers for the adjacent
neighborhood and architectural design control through the proposed PCD zoning.
Failure to perform study to determine how affordable housing would be impacted by reducing
amount of available space.
Staff Remarks: The project site is considered an in-fill project. Although development has
occurred around the site, the site itself has not been developed under its current Mobile Home
residential designation because residential development would have potentially more barriers to
development than other residential properties. These barriers could include, noise from the
adjacent SR-99 and access. Mitigation Measures and discretionary conditions have been
included to reduce impacts of the commercial development on adjacent residential land. There
are five mobile home parks or subdivisions within 1.5 miles of the project site that have vacancies
available.
Other commercial property is available.
Staff Remarks: The applicant submitted a study entitled "Retail Impact Analysis" prepared by
Stanley R. Hoffman and Associates, and supplemented by a report entitled "Bakersfield Retail
Vacancy and Absorption 2002 Survey" prepared by Hopper Properties and CB Richard Ellis.
These reports evaluated the absorption of commercial uses and re-use of vacant commercial
buildings. The reports determined that the development of the project would be absorbed locally
and re-use of buildings occurs in the local market. There are other vacant commercial properties in
the area.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page5
Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
Under separate action listed on the agenda in Consent section, staff recommends certification of
the Final EIR for the project. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Sections 15151 and 15090, the
Final EIR has been prepared to be a complete and good faith effort at full disclosure, and has been
completed in compliance with CEQA.
Public Notice:
The Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on December 19, 2002. Public notices for
the City Council hearing were sent at least 10 days prior to the City Council meeting. Property
owners within 300 feet of the project site, and persons requesting notification were sent the notice.
Conclusion:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the project subject the Mitigation Measures
and conditions of approval.
Jeng
S:pam\admin~2-12-0193
MEETING DATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
February 12, 2003 I AGENDA SECTION: Hearings
I
ITEM: 9.eo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Development Services - Planning
February 5, 2003
SUBJECT: Concurrent General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 02-0030 (Ward 5)
Castle & Cooke California, Inc. has proposed to amend the general plan and zoning from industrial
to general commercial at the northwest corner of Gosford and Harris Roads.
Resolution making findings, denying both appeals and adopting the proposed amendment
to the land use element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan by changing the land
use map designation from SI (Service Industrial) to GC (General Commercial) on 78 gross
acres.
An Ordinance amending Section 17.06.020 (Zone Map No 123-20) of Title Seventeen of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the zoning from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to
P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) on 73.53 net acres.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denying the two appeals in pad, adopt the resolution and first reading of the
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Project Description: On December 19, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
Nos. 161-02 and 162-02 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment and concurrent
Zone Change No. 02-0030, respectively. The P.C.D. proposal by Castle and Cooke, CA, Inc.
involves the development of approximately 700,000 square feet of various retail commercial and
service uses, anchored by several major "big-box" retail tenants. The major anchor buildings would
comprise a total of approximately 634,000 square feet. Several smaller pads for retail businesses
would comprise a total of approximately 53,000 square feet. Additionally, several small pads for
fast-food businesses are proposed, comprising a total of approximately 12,500 square feet.
Primary access to the site is proposed from Gosford Road (an arterial). Additional access will be
provided from both Harris Road (a collector) and Pacheco Road (local street). The site is flat and
currently vacant. Water provided by Ashe Water Company and sewer provided by the City of
Bakersfield.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2
Appeals:
Two appeals have been submitted to the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of
the project. The first appeal was submitted by the applicant, Castle and Cooke California, Inc. (see
Exhibit A). The appeal objects to all of the discretionary conditions that were added by the
Planning Commission on December 19, 2002. Specifically, the appeal addresses the following:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Restriction on the hours of operation (Condition Nos. 44 and 45).
Restriction of outside storage areas (Condition No. 46).
Restriction on the number of days allowed for trailer parking (Condition No. 46).
Addition of bike racks for all major pads (Condition No. 43).
Requirement to shield fast food speaker boxes (Condition No. 33).
Restriction on the hours allowed for delivery of goods (Condition No. 45).
Illumination of buildings (Condition No. 47).
These conditions were added by the Planning Commission at the public hearing December 19,
2002. A careful review of these conditions reveals that some are vague (Condition 47), some
difficult to enforce (Condition 44) or covered by other conditions or local ordinance (Condition 42).
Planning law requires evidence in the record so that findings can be made in support of conditions.
Conditions 45 and 46 (truck deliveries) have no evidence in the record for this project identifying
that truck deliveries will be an issue. Staff has met with the applicant and reviewed the appeal
conditions at length. It is recommended by staff that the appeal with respect to conditions 42, 44,
45, 46, and 47 be upheld.
The second appeal was submitted by Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control (see Exhibit B). The
appeal contains three main issues:
Environmental Impact Report
Zoning
Cultural Resources
Items No. 1 and 3 were addressed in the administrative report for certifying the Final EIR. Item No.
2 is addressed below. Item No. 2 contains six specific issues. Staff has addressed each of the
issues with the following responses:
Pursuant to CEQA, the City is only required to analyze the project's physical impacts on the
environment. Therefore, unless social and economic effects actually contribute or cause physical
impacts to the environment, a social and economic impact analysis is not required. To date, no
evidence has been submitted indicating that social and economic effects would contribute or cause
physical impacts to the environment.
2. There is no record of any past zone change application being denied for this property.
The petitions submitted state opposition only to the potential development of a proposed Super
Wal-Mart. The petitions do not oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
under GPA/ZC 02-0030.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page3
The nearest residences to the north are located 330' from the project site. The nearest residences
to the east are located 220' from the project site. There has been no evidence submitted to the
City of Bakersfield which indicates that the proposal would in fact reduce the value of residential
property in the area.
5. The appeal does not identify any available commercial retail space in the City of Bakersfield that is
comparable in size and location to the proposal.
In Section 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Errata for the Draft EIR), on page 3-1, the
report states that "The City's public water system within the Ashe Water District has sufficient
capacity and is available to supply water for the project."
Analysis:
The 78 acre project site is currently designated and zoned for Industrial land use. The site is
separated from Campus Park (to the north) by a road and a railroad line (a buffer of more than 330
feet). An excellent buffer also exists between this proposal and the Silver Creek development (to
the east), Gosford Road is110 feet wide and Stine Canal is 110 feet wide. All of the commercial
uses proposed are permitted (by right) within the existing M-2 zoning.
The existing zoning is M-2 (General Manufacturing) which permits many intensive Industrial uses
such as: crematories, petroleum refineries, ammonia manufacture, insect poison manufacture and
iron foundries. Within the existing zone, buildings are permitted up to 13 stories. The potential for
conflicts with nearby neighborhoods would be far less if this site were developed as a P.C.D.
(Planned Commercial Development) than M-2 (General Manufacturing).
The site plan for the proposal is provided in Exhibit 3. The proposal includes an optional design
plan for changing Pad No. 3 and Pad No. 11 from Fast Food to Retail. Under the option, each pad
would be increased by 3,500 sq. ft. The site plan is also proposing a self-serve gas station at the
southern end of the project site, adjacent to Harris Road. Direct access to the gas station is not
proposed from Harris Road or Gosford Road.
The project requires 3,033 parking spaces. The site plan is proposing 3,511 parking stalls. If
implemented, the optional design would require a total of 2,969 parking spaces.
At the northwest corner of the project site, the site plan illustrates the alignment of a future railroad
spur. This railroad spur alignment is an existing easement for the railroad. A total of 24 parking
stalls would be removed if the easement were ever utilized. The removal of 24 parking stalls would
not affect the number of parking stalls required for the project.
The area west and south of the project site is under agricultural cultivation and zoned for Industrial
uses and is owned by the applicant. Excellent access is provided for this project from the three
boundary streets: Harris Road (south side), Gosford Road (east side) and Pacheco Road (north
side). There are eleven access drives from this development, to these three streets.
The project meets all parking, landscaping, and sign standards of the Zoning Ordinance. All
lighting will be required to meet City standards. Illumination is required to be evenly distributed
across parking areas with light fixtures designed and arranged so that light is directed downward
and is reflected away from residential properties and streets. The proposed elevation drawings
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
provide a modern look with pleasing architectural features and colors. All signs will be required to
meet Ordinance standards. It is not unusual that in the preparation of actual building plans, slight
variations in the building square footage will result. Therefore, a 5% flexibility in square footage
has been provided under Condition No. 29 (see Exhibit 1).
Public Controversy:
There has been tremendous public interest in this case with a very unusual "twist." Typically,
controversial cases with this magnitude of public interest are almost exclusively dominated by the
concerns of adjacent property owners. Staff received virtually no letters, no office contacts and no
phone calls from anyone living within the Silver Creek or Campus Park residential developments.
The majority of interest in this case seems to revolve around the opposition to one of the proposed
majors (Wal-Mad). Fewer than ten persons living in the area have expressed any interest in the
case at the public hearing.
Public Notice:
In addition to the notices of May 31 and September 3, 2002 concerning the EIR for this project, a
public hearing notice was published in the local newspaper for General Plan Amendment and the
concurrent Zone Change on December 3, 2002. Notice was sent to property owners within 300
feet of the project site and to interested parties. Notice was sent to those persons/agencies
making comment on the EIR stating the Final EIR is available. A public hearing was held before
the Planning Commission on December 19, 2002.
Notice of the City Council's hearing was sent and published at least ten days prior to the hearing.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
Under separate action listed in the Consent section, staff is recommending certification of the Final
EIR for the project.
Conclusion:
The project site is large enough and conveniently located to provide a variety of retail uses that
justify the General Commercial designation. The preliminary development plan of the proposed
PCD zone illustrates that the project will serve the area as a regional commercial site. The project
site has direct access to an existing Arterial (Gosford Road). A large segment of the City's
population is located only minutes from the project site. Staff is recommending approval of
GPA/ZC with conditions of approval 42, 44, 45, 46 and 47 be deleted.
WC
S:pam\admin\1-12~0030(wm)