HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 10-85RESOLUTION NO. 10-85
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS AND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR AND PREZONING
OF SECTIONS 21 AND 22, T.30S.,R.27E
M.D.B.&M.
WHEREAS, it is proposed that approximately 650 acres of land
currently located in Kern County north of Panama Lane to the
Southern Pacific Railroad, east of Gosford Road to the
Canal be annexed to the City of Bakersfield;
Arvin-Edison
and
WHEREAS,
it is proposed that the Land Use Element of the
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan be extended to depict
the proposed annexation area as Low Density Residential on
approximately 332 acres and Commercial on 16 acres;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield proposes pursuant to Section
65859 of the Government Code to prezone approximately 152.1
acres to an A (Agricultural) Zone, 430.6 acres to R-1 (One-Family
Dwelling) Zone, and 31.6 acres to R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family
Dwelling) Zone;
and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report on said proposal
was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a
consultant, circulated and distributed in accordance with the
requirements of law and applicable regulations;
and
WHEREAS, public and private agencies and individuals sub-
mitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
as listed in the Comments and Responses;
and
-2-
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and conducted
by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in
accordance with the procedures required by City Resolution
132-83, on December 6, 1984, at which hearing the public was
entitled to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant
points raised by the public and private agencies and individuals
in the review and public hearing process, and the Final
Environmental Impact Report, consisting of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, comments and recommendations
received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including a
list of persons or organizations and public agencies commenting
on the Draft and the responses of the City as aforesaid, was
completed by the Development Services Department and placed on
the Agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on
December 20, 1984, for evaluation and consideration by said
Commission;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning commission, on the
basis of the Sections 21 and 22 EIR, identified a number of
significant or potentially significant effects associated with
the approval of the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment
and Zoning Upon Annexation;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires
one or more of the following findings as to each significant
effect:
(1)
Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as iden-
tified in the Final EIR.
-3-
(2)
(3)
Such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making
the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other con-
siderations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives iden-
tified in the Final EIR;
and
WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evidence
in the record summarized for each identified significant or
potentially significant effect, below, accompanied by a statement
of the facts supporting each finding;
ae
Be
Ce
SOILS: The only significant impacts on soils in the
ject area may occur as a result of rainfall run-
off or dust erosion if left barren following urban
construction activities.
pro-
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
the potential adverse effect of leaving soil barren
following construction activities.
Supporting Facts:
as mitigation in
1.
The following actions are required
support of finding (1):
Regular sprinkling and wetting down of the project
site during the construction phase.
Revegetation of exposed surfaces immediately after
construction.
Development of adequate on and off-site storm
drainage systems as the project site is converted to
urban use.
HYDROLOGY: The combination of additional canal length
plus the greater soil porosity along the new alignment
may result in Stine Canal seepage losses larger than
now experienced.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
the potential adverse effect of water loss from the
lengthening of an unlined canal.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required
as mitigation in support of finding (1).
1. If deemed essential, the Stine canal could be lined
with concrete to mitigate water loss for the
appropriate distance resulting from realignment.
CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO URBAN USE:
The project would result in the removal of approximately
600 acres from agricultural production. Related effects
include possible restrictions on pesticide/herbicide
applications for agricultural purposes on adjacent farm
lands south and west of the project site, and the con-
tinued interest in developing additional urban uses on
agricultural lands as urban growth and public
facilities/services are extended by the city to the south
and west.
-4-
De
Findings and Application: Finding (3) applies to the
loss of prime agricultural land, possible restrictions on
pesticide/herbicide application, and the growth inducing
impacts of the project.
Supporting Facts: Because there is no feasible mitiga-
tion for the significant loss of agricultural land and
growth inducing impact of the proposed project, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is issued
based on the following considerations:
1. The project would provide a range of housing oppor-
tunities for various income groups.
2. The project would provide residents with easily
accessible school sites, recreational opportunities
and shopping facilities in a self-contained neigh-
borhood.
3. The proposed development is consistent with the
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Housing Element policy to encourage the develop-
ment of a balanced housing stock including a
variety of housing types, ownership configurations
and prices.
4. The develoDment would result in contiguous growth of
the city.
AIR QUALITY: Long-term mobile source emissions will
result from vehicular trips generated by the projected
residential population and customers/employees of the
commercial uses proposed.
Findings and Application: Findings (1) and (2) apply
to the potential adverse effect on air quality from
mobile sources resulting from project development.
Supporting Facts: Measures in support of findings (1)
and (2) to mitigate the effects on air quality due to
mobile sources include:
1. The Nonattainment Area Plan for the Kern County
Portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, (NAP),
identifies control strategies recommended to achieve
State and Federal air quality standards.
2. Consideration of a motor vehicle inspection/maintenance
program that would require bi-annual emissions
testing of vehicles.
3. Transit improvements in the form of increased bus
usage and the encouragement of ride share programs
and park and ride arrangements.
4. Increased usage of bicycles along the bike routes
through the project for short trips.
5. Traffic flow improvements along major arterials to
reduce stop and go traffic and extended idling of
vehicles.
NOISE: The urbanization of the project area will result
in an increase in area noise levels (primarily due to
automobile traffic) typical of an urban environment.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
the potential adverse effect of noise emmitters on the
environment
to
-5-
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required
as mitigation measures in support of finding (1).
1. Realignment of the Stine Canal along the north and
west project boundaries to provide a buffer to
railroad and street noise.
2. Development plans should incorporate noise-screening
topographic and vegetative buffers and walls or
building placement to minimize noise from the
railroad and from nearby traffic arterials.
3. Enforcement of Section 1092 of the California
Administrative Code, Title 25, will mitigate noise
impacts for multiple occupancy dwellings.
4. The latest locally-adopted edition of the Uniform
Building Code incorporates noise dampening provisions
for other structures.
LAND USE: The project has the potential to create incom-
patibilities among adjacent land uses, particularly uses
existing or allowed on adjacent land zoned for industrial
uses in the county, or agricultural uses because of the
need to apply pesticides and herbicides to crops.
Findings and application: Finding (1), above, applies to
the potential adverse impacts resulting from land use
incompatibility resulting from the proposed development.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as
mitigation measures in support of finding (1):
1. Buffers to screen proposed residential areas from
noise, glare and debris should be created between the
railroad, grain elevators and adjacent residential
areas.
2. The city development plan review process should eva-
luate project design so that adequate distance
separates residential uses from obnoxious uses
through the application of setbacks, buffers, open
space and road rights-of-way.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: The project would result in signi-
ficant increases in traffic volumes on area streets and
highways.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
the potential for impact on area streets and highways.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as
mitigation measures in support of finding (1).
1. Development of interior streets and adjacent
arterials per city development standards.
2. Fifty percent contribution of the cost required for
necessary structure at the proposed intersection of
Harris Road and Ashe Road bridging the Arvin-Edison
Canal.
DOMESTIC WATER: Projected water usage at full buildout
of the project is approximately 27,500 gallons per day.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
the projected water demand.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required
as mitigation measures in support of finding (1).
1. Project developers would be required to pay for new
wells as needed to supply domestic water to the pro-
ject site.
-6-
Je
2. Project developers would be required to pay a per
acre fee (currently $2,000) as an availability fee
for connection to the City Water System or project
developers could provide for new wells as needed to
supply domestic water to the project in lieu of the
fees.
3. Any necessary infrastructure (water mains) will be
provided by the developer.
SEWER SERVICE: Development of this project will require
sewage treatment and disposal for approximately 3,000
dwelling units. This will result in approximately 1
million gallons of effluent to the treatment plant.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, addresses
the impact on sewer services.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as
mitigation measures in support of finding (1).
1. Collection of sewer fees will offset some of the
treatment plant expansions, trunk lines and other
associated infrastructure.
2. Phasing of the various stages of the project to
control the rate of development and to prevent
overloading of sewage treatment plant or disposal
facilites.
SCHOOLS: School enrollment projections indicate a poten-
tially significant impact on the Lakeside School District
as a result of project buildout. The project would add
approximately 1,646 students to this district.
Findings and Applications: Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential for a substantial effect on the Lakeside
school District resulting from project student
generation.
Supporting Facts: The following action is a required miti-
gation measure in support of finding (1):
1. The conceptual plan for the proposed project indica-
tes 25 acres for K-8 school facilities will be
reserved near the center of the project area if
needed for that purpose by the school district.
RISK OF UPSET: The proposed project has the potential
for exposing future populations to highly toxic substan-
ces because of its geographic relationship to an
industrial use which handles Acrolein (chemical name,
2-propenal), a highly toxic ingredient used in herbicides.
The project area is also bounded on the northeast side by
an industrial railroad tank car cleaning use which has a
remote possibility of presenting a hazard to residents
due to its involvement with small amounts of potentially
flammable substances, such as propane or butane.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to
the potential for existing industrial land uses to impact
residents of the proposed project.
-7-
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required
mitigation measures in support of finding (1):
1. It will be a condition of each tentative subdivision
map within the project area that no final map
will be recorded until such time it can be shown
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City's
Planning Department that health hazards related
to the proximity to facilities (such as the
Magna Industrial Complex) which handle, store,
or in any use toxic chemicals no longer exists.
2. A 6 to 8 foot concrete block wall (or other like
substance or solid barrier) should be constructed
between the residential sites of the project and the
area of the Gosford Feed Mill.
CULTURAL RESOURCES: There is a slight possibility that
site preparation for project construction could uncover
archeological/historical resources.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
for the potential for an adverse effect on cultural
resources.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as
mitigation measures in support of finding (1):
1. Any archeological artifacts or remnants discovered
shall be evaluated by competent authorites to deter-
mine their significance and recommend any necessary
mitigation measures.
2. If a cultural resource discovery is made, all work in
the site area shall cease until an evaluation has
been performed by a cultural resource expert.
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission on the
basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts found and this
Council finds that significant environmental effects which may
not be substantially mitigated to a level of insignificance
include the loss of prime agricultural land and the growth
inducing impact of the proposed project;
and
WHEREAS, the project objectives are to provide a range of
housing opportunities to various income groups, to provide residents
with easily accessible school sites, recreational opportunities
and shopping facilities in a self-contained neighborhood, and to
allow for the contiguous growth of the city;
and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan Housing element policy to
encourage the development of a balanced housing stock including a
variety of housing types, ownership configurations and prices;
and
-8-
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission found and this Council
finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
remaining adverse environmental effects sufficiently to declare
the adverse environmental effects as "acceptable" and hereby to
issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the
basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts, found and this
Council finds that other significant environmental effects raised
in the EIR have been eliminated or substantially lessened and
that any remaining, un-avoidable significant effects have been
found acceptable on the basis of specific economic, social or
other considerations including those described for a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and making additional mitigation or
alternatives to the project infeasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD HEREBY
DETERMINES, FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The above findings and recitals are true and correct.
2. That the Final EIR dated December, 1984, including City
response as an appended document, has been reviewed, evaluated
and considered by this Council.
3. That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines
and the City of Bakersfield Resolution 132-83.
4. That the said Final EIR is an accurate and objective
discussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses and
describes the environmental considerations and mitigation
measures.
5. That the various alternatives to the project, including
"no project", have been considered in the Final EIR.
-9-
6. That in consideration of the above statements and find-
ings, the City Council certifies the Final EIR as complete, with
appended material including information contained in this
Resolution, and in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield
Resolution 132-83.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that
adopted by the Council of
the Regular Meeting thereof
1985, by the following roll
the foregoing Resolution was passed and
the City of Bakersfield at
held on the 13th day of February, 1985
call vote:
DATED: February 13, 1985
CITY CLERK AND Ex Officio Clerk of
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED this
MAYOR of the City eld
the
APPROVED as to form:
~NEY of th~ City of Bakersfield