HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 25-78RESOLUTION N0. 25-7a
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD DECLARING IT HAS REVIEWED,
EVALUATED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE FINAL EIR, MAKING FIND-
INGS AND CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL EIR
HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES AND CITY RESOLU-
TION NO. 24-77, RE STOCKDALE 10 ANNEXATION,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ZONING.
WHEREAS, it is proposed that approximately 3,629 acres
of land lying south of California State College, Bakersfield and
Stockdale Highway, east of Buena Vista Road, north of Pacheco
Road, and west of the present city boundary, be annexed to the
City of Bakersfield, designated as Stockdale No. 10, Annexation
No. 243; also it is proposed that approximately 145 acres in
Section 9 and 300 acres in Section 16 not in agricultural pre-
serves, be prezoned for residential use, including R1, R2 and R3,
as shown on Figure 6 of the Final EIR; also it is proposed to
amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to include Section
18, a part of the project area; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft
EIR) on said project was prepared by the Bakersfield Development
Services Department upon a contract with the City with Lusich-
Patrick-Henderson-Mueller and Associates, Inc. (Engineering,
Architecture, Planning) of 2323 "E" Street, Bakersfield, California
and circulated and distributed in accordance with the requirements
of law (57 copies) and applicable regulations, the distribution
list being included in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, state review of the environmental documents
was certified on December 14, 1977, as complete by the Director
of the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and.
conducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commis-
sion in accordance 'with the procedures required by City Resolu-
tion No. 2477, on December 28, 1977, at which hearing comments
were received; and
WHEREAS, various public entities, both statewide and
local, and other organizations have submitted written comments on
the Draft.EIR, a list of which appears on page 2 of the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all sig-
nificant environmental points 'raised by the public agencies and
private persons commenting in writing and any such points raised
in the consultation, review and public hearing process and the
Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR, comments and recommenda-
tions received on the Draft EIR, a list of persons, or organiza-
tions and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR and the
responses of the City as aforesaid, has been completed by the
Development Services Department and placed on the agenda of the
regular meeting of the Planning Commission of March 7, 1978, for
evaluation and consideration by said Commission; and
WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the Planning Commis-
sion on March 7, 1978, the said Commission reviewed, evaluated
and considered the information contained in the FinalEIR, made
certain findings, and by its Resolution No. 7-78 recommended to
this Council that the said Final EIR be certified as completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 24-77
and recommended approval of the project as proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY DETER-
MINES, FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. That the information contained in the Final Envi-
ronmental Impact Report, dated February, 1978, re Stockdale No.
10 Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Zoning, has been reviewed,
evaluated and considered by the members of the City Council.
3. That the said Final EIR is an accurate and objec-
tive discussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses
and describes all of the environmental considerations and mitiga-
tion measures which need to be considered prior to the approval
of the proposed project.
4. That urban development in the project area will
occur, probably increasing the number of dwelling units by 11,200.
The approval of the annexation will allow planned growth to occur
in an area which will center around the State College. Annexa-
tion by itself will not increase the population density.
5. County agricultural crop production may decrease by
0.37%. Approximately 1300 acres will probably eventually be
removed from the Agricultural Preserve.' However, the total
number of county harvested acres increases each year by an average
of 2.4%. Development will move westerly across the site, allowing
\
the existing agriculturally producing land to remain productive
in the interim. The option to succeed or not to succeed to the
Williamson Act Contracts only applies to contracts which have
been successfully protested involving land within one mile of the
City at the time of protest. Otherwise the City must succeed to
the Williamson Act Contracts on lands which are in excess of the
one-mile zone. This option must be decided by the City Council
at time of annexation.
6. The project area could generate as many as 22,550
vehicles and generate 125,635 vehicle trips per day. A portion
of the trips will be reduced ultimately by locating community
shopping centers and schools throughout the area and by locating
professional and commercial offices close to the college. A high
residential density around the college will allow a reduction in
vehicle miles traveled for those living near the college.
7. Alignment of major arterial roads will need to be
established. The major alignments will be along section lines
per the State College Area General Plan. Alignments of streets
within the communities should be scrutinized for efficiency and
adequacy as subdivisions within the. project area are developed.
8. Urban development will increase the type and variety
~f air pollution in the southwest Bakersfield area. Planning for
roads and their intersections will help offset a portion of the
vehicle miles traveled thereby reducing air pollution. Other
mitigation measures such as bicycle and pedestrian paths and the
location of community shopping centers and schools will also tend
to reduce air pollution.
9. An increase in the number of students.will require
schools and facilities to be located in the project area. Con-
struction of new schools will take place over a period of years
in coordination with the State College Area General Plan. School
boards will have sufficient time to evaluate their enrollment
needs based upon information given in the Final EIR. Also advan-
tage can be sought by the school districts from provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act relating to required dedication of property
and from the provisions of new Chapter 4.7 (commencing with
Section 65970) of the Government Code relating to required dedi-
cations and fees from developers when a finding of overcrowding
in attendance areas are made and the City is notified by the
school district.
10. That the project area would use less water than
agricultural uses.
11. Based upon the ultimate average density, develop-
ment of the complete project area will exceed the capacity of the
Sewage Disposal Plant No. 3. Planning for improvement and expan-
sion of existing Plant No. 3 is presently being done in anticipa-
tion of future development. Alignment of future interceptors
will be located in major arterials before construction of the
arterials.
12. Solid waste collection for the total project area
could increase the City's annual waste generation by approximately
69%. No immediate adverse impact is foreseen from development
expected to occur. Continuation of present collection and dis-
posal methods'will maintain the quality of service for future
residents. Sufficient sanitary landfill capacity remains to
allow city and county planners time to locate additional landfill
sites in the future.
13. Electrical power and natural gas usage will in-
crease' by approximately 7.6% and 1.9% respectively. Insulation
of buildings in accordance with building codes will substantially
reduce heating and cooling requirements. Solar heating of domes-
tic water and living spaces can be utilized economically at this
time.
14. Development along arterial roads and railroad
tracks will experience increased ambient noise levels. Vehicular
noise will be reduced by requiring developers to construct noise
barriers along all major and secondary arterials, and sound-
proofing buildings and structures within the 60 dBA CNEL contours.
15'. The quality of water is not expected to decrease
with development. Operation under California Water Service
Company helps assure proper management and quality of domestic
water.
16. The various alternatives to the project, including
no project, have been considered. The annexation as presently
proposed is recommended after due consideration.
17. That the above findings re mitigation measures
represent some change in the project which avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR.
18. That there are economic, social and other consid-
erations which make infeasible any other mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Approximately
37,000 persons will be added to the community population when the
total project area is developed in orderly fashion. Housing
within the project area would accommodate the overall growth
trend of the area for a considerable length of time into the
future. It is believed the ultimate plans of the State College
and its relationship to the community would be served by approval
of the project.
Development in the annexed porti6n of the project area
will have short-term financial impacts on revenue-supported city
services. The tax base for the quality of improvements antici-
pated for the coll~ge area will offset costs necessary for commu-
nity facilities and services. It is determined that the proposed
project contains social and economic benefits which outweigh any
environmental risks associated with the project.
19. That in consideration of the above statements,
determinations and findings, and the evidence presented, this
Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact
Report has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City
of Bakersfield Resolution No. 24-77.
o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed
and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular
\
meeting thereof held on the 15th day of March , 1978, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN B.A.,~T. eM, CHRISTENSEN, MEDDERS, RATTY, ROGERS, SCEALES, STRONG
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COG~/CI""iM"EN:
ABSTAINING COUNCILMEN:
CITY ~R~Ofjfficio C erk of'
Council of the C~y of Bakersfield the
1978
APPROVED as to form:
C f f Bakersfield