HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 16-81RESOLUTION NO. 16'81
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD DECLARING THAT IT HAS REVIEWED,
EVALUATED, AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE FINAL EIR FOR A PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ZONE
CHANGE ON PROPERTIES LOCATED NORTHERLY OF
PANAMA LANE, WESTERLY OF STINE ROAD TO 'THE
ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, AND SOUTHERLY OF THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC ASPHALTO BRANCH RAILROAD,
MAKING FINDINGS, AND CERTIFYING THAT SAID
FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES, AND CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 60-80.
WHEREAS, it is proposed that certain Land Use Amendments be
made to the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use
Element affecting approximately 520 acres of vacant land located
Northerly of Panama Lane, Westerly of Stine Road to the Arvin-
Edison Canal and Southerly of the Southern Pacific Asphalto Branch
Railroad and currently shown on the Bakersfield Land Use Element as
Low Density Residential and zoned A (Agricultural) in the County;
and
WHEREAS, the project sponsors propose approximately 150 acres
of industrial use, approximately 20 acres of commercial use, and
the remaining area as mixed urban residential use; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report for said project
was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a con-
sultant after being requested to originate said Environmental
Impact Report by the Local Agency. Formation Commission; and
WHEREAS, said Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated
and distributed in accordance with the requirements of law and
applicable City regulations, the distribution list being included
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, public and/or private agencies and/or individuals
submitted written or verbal comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report as listed in the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by and before
the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in accordance with the
procedures required by City Resolution 60-80, on December 3, 1980,
at which hearing the public was entitled to comment upon the Draft
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant
points raised in the consultation, review, .and public hearing
process and the Final Environmental Impact Report consisting of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report, comments and recommendations re-
ceived on said Draft, a list' of persons or organizations and public
agencies commenting on the Draft and responses of the City as
aforesaid was completed by the Development Services Department and
was placed on the Agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of December 17, 1980 and was continued to January 7,
1981 for evaluation and consideration by said Commission; and
WHEREAS, at said Regular Meeting, the Planning Commission
evaluated and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report;
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the
basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts, has determined that
the significant environmental effects raised in the EIR have been
eliminated or substantially lessened and that any remaining,
unavoidable significant effects have been found acceptable on the
basis of specific economic, social or other considerations making
additional mitigation or alternatives to the project infeasible and
that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from
modifications and additions recommended by the Planning Commission
from the areas identified in the EIR;
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 7, 1981, the Plan-
ning Commission, after consideration of Final EIR and related
documents, adopted its Resolution No. 45-80, recommending to the
City Council that the Final EIR be certified as completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
EIR Guidelines, and City of Bakersfield Resolution No. 60-80;
NOW,_THEREFORE, the City Council hereby determines, finds and
resolves as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. That the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated December,
1980, has been reviewed, evaluated and considered by the City
Council.
3. That the Final Environmental Impact Report,has been com-
pleted in compliance with 'the 'California EnVironmental Quality Act,
the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80.
4. That the'said Final EIR is 'an accurate and objective dis-
cussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses and de-
scribes the environmental considerations and mitigation measures
which need to be considered prior to approval of any proposed
development project.
5. That the various alternatives to the project, including
"no project" have been considered in the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
6. The environmental impacts of the proposed project were
analyzed on a comparative basis with the permitted land use in ac-
cordance with the Bakersfield Land Use Element of the General Plan,
as follows to-wit:
a. Soils and Topographical Impacts: Project-
related impacts on soils underlying the site
would be confined to those occurring as a
result of future development and construction
activities in the event the site is annexed
and converted to urban uses. Such impacts
would include: erosion of surface soils as
a result of wind if soil surfaces were to be
left barren and exposed, construction-
induced compaction of soils and overcovering
of surface soils with hardscape, and loss of
site soils' agricultural value through
conversion of the site to permanent, non-
agricultural use.
Development of the project site would have
no significant impact on topography of the
site or surrounding area.
Mitigation: Wind-caused erosion of exposed
soils surfaces can be mitigated during con-
struction phases of project. site development
through regular sprinkling and wetting down.
Revegetation of all exposed surfaces should
be accomplished immediately after construction
activities are completed. Compaction of
soils with impervious hardscape, increasing
storm runoff volumes, should be mitigated by
..... the development of adequate on. site and off- _
site storm drainage systems as the overall
project site is converted to urban use.
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Urban
Use Impacts: Annexation and related actions,
including cancellation of the Williamson Act
contract on the property, resulting in sub-
sequent urbanization of the project site
would ultimately result in the removal of
just under 540 acres from agricultural pro-
duction.
· Mi~ig~ation.: Feasible measures' to mitigate
the impact 'of displacing a large amount of
agricultural acreage with 'urban uses are
limited. Requiring project developers to
cause an equivalent land area not currently
utilized for agriculture 'to be put into
production is not workable. Simple refusal
to approve the project would have the effect
of redirecting the 'impetus for the proposed
development to another site in the community,
which almost inevitably would only threaten
displacement of agricultural uses on a
different parcel. A City-adopted policy
restricting new urban development to the
less viable agricultural properties located
in the Northeast portion of the City could
legitimately be criticized as providing
artificial and inequitable economic advan-
tage to a handful of large property owners.
In general, therefore, the only truly viable,
although by no means totally effective,
measure available to mitigate potential im-
pacts associated with urban development
pressures on agricultural lands is establish-
ment and enforcement of national local and
regional planning policies designed to en-
courage infilling of vacant urban lands and
attempting to accommodate urban growth on
lands already lost to agricultural use.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts: In order
to accommodate full build-out project-gene-
rated traffic volumes, assuming the distri-
bution of such volumes as shown in the EIR,
it will be essential that the existing two-
lane roadway between the Southeasterly
corner of the project and State Highway 99,
Panama Lane, be constructed to four-lane
arterial standards. The projected reserve
capacity on other arterials serving the
project makes it essential that such four-
lane capacity be utilized to permit the
conservatively estimated 95 percent of
project-generated trips which have desti-
· nations North and Northeast of the project
to be accommodated.
Mitigation: The minimum mitigation measures
required include:
(1) The completion to four-lane ar-
terial standards of Panama Lane
between New Stine Road and State
Highway 99.
(2) It should be noted that the traffic
distribution assumes completion of
- - already-planned arterial sections
serving the project area - Ashe
Road between the Pacheco Road/
Southern Pacific alignment and
White Lane, and White Lane between
Ashe Road and Gosford Road - and
the widening of New Stine Road from
Panama Lane to Ming Avenue.
Public SerViCes~=and~ F~a~ci~l'it~i+es~Impacts:~
(1) POli'ce' Development of the project
site subsequent to annexation would
increase current demand for police
services'· The Department points
outi.however, that similar develop-
ment and population growth anywhere
else in the City would have es-
sentially the same impact·
Miti~g~at~iOn: No mitigation measures
except continued providing of fund-
ing to continue existing service
levels in response to community
growth are feasible or required.
(2) Fire - Conversion of the project
site from agricultural to urban use
would increase the risk of fire
hazard in the area and the exposure
of humans to this risk. The City's
Fire Department has indicated,
however, that no additional person-
nel or equipment would be needed to
adequately provide fire protection
services to the site.
Mitigation: The City Fire Depart-
ment has stipulated that, should
the project site be annexed and
developed, the developer(s) should
provide appropriately located fire
hydrants with adequate water flows·
Additionally, City building ~-.
standards now require the instal-
lation of sprinkling systems for
fire suppression in industrial
structures.
(3) Domestic Water - Water service
demand is 768,000 gallons per day
and has been calculated for full
buildout of the project site based
on maximum permitted General Plan
densities as proposed.
Projected industrial water con-
sumption cannot be calculated,
inasmuch as the nature of industry
which might be developed on the
site and the extent to which it
would use water cannot be.deter-
mined with any degree of accuracy
at this time.
Mitigation: Project developers
would be required to pay for new
wells as needed to supply domestic
water to the project site. It is
possible that existing wells lo-
cated on-site could be improved,
dedicated to the City and utilized
to supply domestic water.
Sewer Service - Development of the
project site over an unstated
development period would require
sanitary sewage treatment and
disposal for approximately 1,500
single family dwellings, 495 multi-
ple family dwellings, 18 acres of
(4)
(5)
commercial development, 150 acres
of industrial development, and an
elementary school.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures
available to minimize the impact of
potential project site development
subsequent to annexation are:
Timely planning, financing, and
construction of adequate sewage
treatment and disposal facilities
to accept project-generated wastes;
and/or
".Growth constraints, at various
stages of project development approval
by City to restrict project development
or the rate of project development, to
prevent overload of sewage treatment
plant or disposal facilities.
A plan will be adopted prior to development
within Panama Lane No. 3 Annexation
setting forth the methods and means of
handling the additional sewage generated
by future development in the Panama
Lane No. 3 Annexation area.
Solid Waste - Projected solid waste
generation, were the annexation site to
be built out to the maximum possible
density under the requested General
Plan designations, are 36,000 pounds
per day. Industrial solid waste gene-
ration cannot be meaningfully estimated
since the nature of potential industrial
development is undefined.
Mitigation: The growth of the total
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area will
necessitate development of a new County
solid waste disposal facility within
the next seven or eight years. A site
located as close to the metropolitan
center of population as is practical
would help reduce total waste col-
lection and disposal costs. The City
may wish to review its solid waste
management system and consider es-
tablishing this service on a "pay-as-
you-go" or enterprise operating basis,
with fees for service offsetting pro-
gram costs.
7. That in consideration of the above statements and find-
ings, the City Council certifies that the Final EIR is complete a, nd
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State+EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80.
o0o.
I HEREBY CERTIF.Y that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted by the 'Council of the City. of Bakersfield at a
regular meeting thereof heId on the ttth day of March, 1981, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BARTON, CHRISTENSEN, MEANS,/;t::L::~I~,PAYNE, RATTY, STRONG
NoEs COUNC,,MEN
CITY C O f
Council of the City of Bakersfield
CITY AF~TORNE e i y
Y t Bakersfield
the