Loading...
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