HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 6-80 RESOLUTION NO. 6180
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
DECLARING IT HAS REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFOrmATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS AND ~
CERTIFYING THAT SAID FINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIR HAS BEEN
COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES AND CITY RESOLUTION
NO. 39-78, RE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SUB-
SEQUENT ZONE CHANGE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY
SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 178; EASTERLY OF MOUNT VERNON
AVENUE; NORTHERLY OF BERNARD~STREET; AND WESTERLY OF
OSWELL STREET.
WHEREAS, it is proposed that approximately 70+ acres of
vacant land located southerly of State Route '178, between Mount
Vernon Avenue and Oswell Street; and northerly of Bernard Street,
the major portion of which is currently shown on the Land Use
Element as medium density residential and zoned R-1 be designated as
commercial to be zoned Planned Commercial Development (P.C.D.); and
WHEREAS, the project sponsors are proposing a planned com-
mercial development-shoppin9 center and office complex upon the said
aff'ected property; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearin9 was held and con-
ducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Plannin9 Commission on
April 18, 1979, in accordance with the procedures required by City
Council Resolution 39-78, at which hearin9 the public was entitled
to comment upon the Draft EIR, dated February, 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution
No. 17-79, adopted April 18, 1979, approved and recommended certifi-
cation of the previous Environmental Impact Report, dated February,
1979, by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Bakersfield by its Resolution
No. 43-79, on May 16, 1979, denied the certification of the Environ-
mental Impact Report and made declarations and findings to sub-
stantiate their action; and
WHEREAS, such findings of the Bakersfield City Council
were the subject matter considered in a Supplemental Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Report on said project was prepared by the City of. Bakersfield
Development Services Department upon a contract between the City
of Bakersfield and a consultant and .circulated and distributed in
accordance with the requirements of law and applicable regulations
and guidelines, the distribution list being included in the Supple-
mental Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and con-.
ducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission for
aforesaid Supplemental Draft EIR in accordance with the adopted
environmental procedure of the City of Bakersfield, at which hearing
the public was entitled to comment on the Supplemental Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all signifi-
cant points raised in the consultation, review and public hearing
process; and
WHEREAS, the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact
Report contains the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report;
comments and recommendations received in the review process, a list
of persons or. organizations and public 'agencies commenting on the
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report and the responses
thereto of. the City; and
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental ~nvironmental Impact
Report was completed by the Development Services Department and
placed on the. agenda of the regular meeting of the Planning Commis-
sion on December 19, 1979, for evaluation and consideration by said
Commission; and
WHEREAS, at said regular meeting', the Planning Commission
evaluated and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report and. by its Resolution No. 72-79, adopted December 19, 1979,
recommended to the City Council that the Final and Supplemental EIRs
be certified as completed in,compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield
Resolution No. 39-78.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS AND RESOLVES.as follows:'
1. That the above recitals are 'true and correct.
2. That the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
dated December 1979, has been reviewed, evaluated and considered by
the Planning Commission.
3. That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Quidelines
and City of Bakersfield Resolution 39-78.
4. That the said Final Supplemental EIR is an accurate and
objective discussion of the proposed project and adequately dis-
cusses and describes the environmental considerations and miti-
gation measures which need to be considered prior to the approval
of the proposed project.
5. That the various alternatives to the project; including
the "Do project" alternative, have been considered in the Final EIR.
6. The Supplemental Draft EIR for the proposed Amendment to
the Land Use Element and the zone change is known as Segment IX of
General Plan Amendment 3-79, and concerns the above noted 70+
acres of vacant land.
7. That as to Segment IX of the 3-79 General Plan Amendment,
the following declarations and findings are made:
a. GENERAL
The proposed action is a request to con-
struct a planned commercial development
(P.C.D.) consisting of approximately 70+
acres of commercial and office uses.
Impacts of the proposed project were
analyzed on a comparative basis with
the existing permitted use of the site.
b. 'TOPOGRAPHICAL' IMPACTS
The natural topographic features of
the site will be altered by cut and
fill operations. However, the pro-
ject site will be terraced to main-
tain the overall southwesterly slope
gradient.
Mitigation
There are no known unique character-
istics or rare formations which require
extraordinary development considera-
tions. The preservation of the pre-
dominant topographical features will
be preserved by terracing.
SOILS
The proposed project will. result in
soils disruption and modification due
to. grading, compaction and.covering
with impervious surfaces. Such impacts
include, but are not limited to possible
settlement and erosion hazards.
Mitigat=ion
The soils report in Appendix "B",of
the original Draft EIR suggests miti-
gation measures to make insignificant
those potential impacts noted above.
AIR QUALITY
Air pollution concentration attribut-
able to the proposed project will pri-
marily result from mobile sources.
Mitigation
The findings in the EIR demonstrate
that there are no significant effects
on the Kern County portion of the San
Joaquin Valley air basin anticipated
to occur that are attributable to the
proposed project. Thus, no site specific
mitigation measures are proposed on site.
NOISE 'IMPACT
The assessment of anitcipated noise
impacts resulting from the proposed
project focused on mobile source gene-
ration. Certain quantities of the
residential units to be constructed
on the site lie within the 60 CNEL
contours.
Mitigation
Any developer on the site is to supply
an acoustical analysis of ambient and
projected noise levels and submit miti-
gation measures as the result of that
analysis prior to the issuance of any
building permits. Such required acousti-
cal analysis shall be performed by a
registered acoustical engineer.
TRAFFIC
The basic conclusion of the traffic
study is that the traffic to be gene-
rated by the proposed project can be
accommodated by the surrounding cir-
culation system at acceptable levels
of service by instituting the following
mitigation measures. These mitigation
measures will be the financial responsi-
bility of the project proponents.
Traffic signals will be required
at the Oswell Street/Bernard Street
and Oswell Street/.westbound freeway
ramps intersections.,and the exist-
ing roadways shall.be restriped to
provide turn lanes as directed by
the traffic authority.
At the Mount Vernon Avenue Interchange
on State Route 178, construct an east-
bound off-ramp, a westbound on-ramp,
and traffic signals at eastbound and
westbound ramp intersections with Mount
Vernon Avenue. On the eastbound off-
ramp approach to Mount Vernon Avenue,
provide three lanes - one for right-
turning movements~ one for left-turning
movements, and one for left or right-
turning movements°
(This project has been approved by
CALTRANS and has received environ-
mental clearances. However, no
funding sources have presently
been identified for the project).
Widen the eastbound off-ramp at the
Oswell Street Interchange on State
Route 178 and provide two right-
turn lanes and one left-turn lane.
Lengthen the northbound left-turn
lane on Oswell Street approaching
the westbound on-ramp to the maxi-
mum length practicable.
At the Oswell Street/Bernard Street
intersection, in addition to measures
already discussed, widen Oswell Street
to provide four northbound lanes -
two lanes for left-turning movements,
one lane for straight movements, and
one lane for stral. ght or right-
turning movements.
Construct remaining Oswell Street
curbed median island between State
Route 178 and Bernard Street.
At the Mount Vernon Avenue/Bernard
Street intersection, widen Mount Vernon
Avenue and modify existing traffic
signal and construct medians to pro-
vide four southbound lanes approach-
ing Bernard Street - two lanes for
left-turning movements, one lane for
straight movements, and one lane for
straight or right-turning movements.
'7.
Along the frontage of Eastside.Center,
additional pavement shall. be installed
to provide for a right-turn lane for
westbound traffic approaching each of
the Eastside Center driveways. Traffic
signals shall be installed on Bernard
Street at the eastern shopping center
driveway and at the western shopping
center driveway. Bernard Street shall
be widened between Oswell Street and
Mount Vernon Avenue to accommodate.two
traffic lanes in each direction for
the entire length.
PUBLI.C SERVI=CES
The nearest municipal sewer interceptor
with available capacity to serve the
site is approximately one-half mile to
the southwest.
Mitigation
Resolution of sewage capacity impacts
can be mitigated through the prepara-
tion of an engineering report which
identifies service design alternatives,
attendant cost estimates and adminis-
trative mechanisimswhich may permit
the Mount Vernon Sanitation District
to service the project site through an
administrative procedure acceptable-to
the City of Bakersfield. These miti-
gation measures will be the financial
responsibility of the project pro-
ponents.
GENERAL DESIGN
The net impact on the public service
infrastructure is increased electrical
consumption.
Mitigation
Utilization of high efficiency
interior (fluorescent) and ex-
terior (sodium-vapor) lighting
fixtures with reduction of ex-
terior lighting to level consis-
tent with public safety require-
ments.
Utilization of energy efficient
air conditioning, heating, and
ventilation systems which incor-
porate an "economizer cycle"
utilizing outside air for ventil-
ation when temperatures permit.
All exterior glass doors should
be partially'mirrored with re-
flective glass to reduce radiant
heat transfer.
Adherence to new State building
design standards (California Ad-
ministrative Code, Title 24,
~Sections T-20-1450 to T-20-1542)
which result in more energy effi-
cient structures than similar fa-
cilities constructed prior to the
new regulations.
Due to the siting orientation
opportunities offered by the site
plan (Figure 2-3) consideration
could be given to the feasibility
of incorporating solar systems to
augment heating and cooling re-
quirements.
ECONOMIC IMPACT AND TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT
The EIR concluded that two new major
regional shopping centers will be
statistically and marginally economically
feasible beginning in 1985. The City
has approved development of a regional
shopping center in the downtown area
which is scheduled to become operational
in 1982.
Mitigation
The Eastside Shopping Center is to com-
mence retail operations after January 1,
1985.
o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that t~he foregoing Resolution was passed
and adopted by the Council of the,City of Bakersfield at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 30th day of January, 1980, by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES; COUNCILMEN 'BARTON, eH'RI'S;Fd',tSEN, MEANS, MILLER, PAYNIS, RATTY, STRONG
NOES: COUNCILMEN ~'2/4J~_~
ABSENT: COUN~ZILMEN: C'~l~'*l'l' I~
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEN: (~i~,l,~l~ ~
CITY'~E~K and 'O/~fficio'Clerk of
"Council o~ty of Bakersfield
January, 1980
Bakersfield
)
o Bakersfield
the