Loading...
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