Loading...
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