HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 013-16RESOLUTION NO. () 13- i. 6
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNIL CERTIFYING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPT SECTION 15091
FINDINGS AND SECTION 15093 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPT MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING PROGRAM; ALL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS AND ZONE CHANGE
LOCATED AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH H STREET AND
HOSKING AVENUE, WITH STATE ROUTE 99 TO THE WEST AND
BERKSHIRE ROAD TO THE NORTH. (GPA /ZC NO. 13- 0417).
WHEREAS, Dmohowski Consulting Services for 4J's & R, LLC, filed an application
with the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department requesting an
amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General
Plan from LR (Low Density Residential), LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) and HMR
(High Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 86.2 acres; a
change to the Circulation Element Map to delete the southerly extension of Colony
Street from Berkshire Road to South H Street as a Collector segment; and an
amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District
from R -1 (One Family Dwelling) and C -2 (Regional Commercial) to C -2 /PCD (Regional
Commercial /Planned Commercial Development) on 86.2 acres located at northwest
corner of South H Street and Hosking Avenue, with State Route 99 to the west and
Berkshire Road to the north (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended certifying the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at
5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,
California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to
consider the proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Project as required by
Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given in the
manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to the City Council meeting set
Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony,
and evidence concerning the staff report, Environmental Impact Report and the
Planning Commission's deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 the Lead Agency
(City of Bakersfield) shall certify that:
(a) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
Page 1 of 3
= i
C R�r'it�AL
(b) The Final EIR was presented to the decision - making body of the Lead
Agency and that the decision - making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and
(c) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and
analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department (1715
Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other
materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the "Mitigation Measures, Monitoring and Reporting Program,"
attached as Exhibit "A," is incorporated into the Project; and
WHEREAS, the "Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation
Measures," attached as Exhibit "B," are appropriate and incorporated into the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the "Statement of Overriding Considerations," attached as Exhibit "C,"
are appropriate and incorporated into the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals are incorporated herein.
2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its Resolution No. 46 -15
are hereby adopted.
3. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the following is
found:
(a) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
(b) The Final EIR was presented to the decision - making body of the Lead
Agency and that the decision - making body reviewed and considered
the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the
project; and
(c) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and
analysis; and
4. The Environmental Impact Report for the Project is hereby certified for the
Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit "D ", incorporated herein.
5. The Project is subject to mitigation measures, monitoring and reporting
program found in Exhibit "A ", incorporated herein.
one;,
ms's
Page 2 of 3
6. There is no feasible mitigation to fully mitigate all identified impacts from
traffic, therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and
a Statement of Overriding Considerations is hereby adopted.
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
IAN 7 0 7016 by the following vote:
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
COUNCILMEMBER: RIVERA, MAXWELL, WEIR, SMITH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, PARLIER
NOES: COUNCRMEMBER: WOVN_
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: LOwQ.
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: IJLIV�
ROBERTA GAFFORD, C
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED SAN 101016 w
HARVEY L. HALL
MAYOR of the City of
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Atto ryfgy
By: I /'�t /J/ /V.�_
ANDREW HEGLUND
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits (attached):
Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures, Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit B: Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings and Mitigation Measures
Exhibit C: Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit D: Location Map
By: CG\ S: \GPAs \13 -0417 \Reno Ord \RES CC ENV Resolution 13-0417.docx
Page 3 of 3
9
CT
T
6
G T
G
{I]
•
•
m
�
�
3
>
.5
v
9
VqNq
G
C
V
4i
L, L
°�°
3
O
°
�
�U
a
�❑ 'd0
C
�❑ •0
Y Y
if
CJw
m
o
fi
e A o
U E
0
U
U
N€
c
c o
�'� o
F
F
T
_ a
3 m
G
9 ��
�'
9
�
y
�O •_
e 6
e
O
L 6
O '�
L 6
Q CI
U
F
L
OG
(% Q
C1
U
6
fq
6�
A .�
'J O. c
�
ti
6•
ua
V'
905
`� E
� O N°
eo•o3 Grp
°
�
a
r°
'CJ9
C.a .�
0�.p
d•�COm
t'C
y
L r-•
6
° N 3
6� 6 O O
3
e
Y
i) • m
'O 6
� .N
Y � � � U
9
tp m
O
OG o?
pO
O
6 Q
a
9 Y a$
m O
9
E
C 'O
U
p C
UM
T+„
O i0
C v C
Y
p
C
'J V f�.
� $ 'N 6
� �'
U � .i0i. Y .5 3
5.
.•j O
-
f
F
�0
O•
G
y 9
A
.� o
N L$ i
'.tt. O•
Cv dv'`
y
N 9
4
3
9���+c
Oa3
„E
%. 6
� 4 �
6 Q
C
�
.•i
Y
v
p
a
=a
G
.•.
m
5
P.
E
'a
E
U
Y
0
Q HT('A
f
szIGINAL
O
a
u
U
Y
E
U
m
Y
O
ORIG!NA!
>
r Y
c E
m>
Ed'g c
C
O
p 9
u C
N
3
eO'�c
q
a
iy°l 9
Q C y Q
N Y 9 y J]
F e
y d m
u
L°
gppC
>
p N
O
Y pT y
p
�j >_ U G
O U] V C 6 Y G
y
Oi O
Gp ] C
Sj
O° 'M C O
'� Y
G
V
O O. N
U N
C'
L
Y>
p
L
O Q O
O
O
12 t3
G C
uNi V'
(�
U y
d C m= C :Z
,L6 �' y
d'
rf'"
Q
4 C= G YC
yy
Y q>
> E `
F
`O
C
V-
V. =]
Q
W t�
° .Jo p 15 W C
9
Y
{9C.
a
u u 9 3
� a E
Q
� �
tg
—>� E
-
'L
6
e
O
a
u
U
Y
E
U
m
Y
O
ORIG!NA!
m
a
'C
0
.e
e
f
E
w p
iL 4°J'
O
uei '�•
Y �
e y
ge
Y Y
ea
F E
u
Ev=L
E 8.$
g w e
O
� E
� E �
_ pT
9 W O
E E
T Y
E O
„s
9 L
e $ m a d
E q
E ' > D
L Q 0 E
0
r
f
4
6
E
o $ ^ - q u
—'uuc ��n r.�w
A a. n 9 4
c E 3 « $ E
i nEqu
`E3 >'Es b
Y ° E
y V @ u c
cv $oEgE
7 q
w o Eoc "Yv
>3mS`n E'Wa
a
mQ V Eyr �'o d'3
N 0
O
W Y „ G
U �O3K�`.� -F°Eu
9 O D O O E
v
�— Ye�D.g`ms
yx °�'°q�C
9 nq L O�
z "Faz3s °n >Y
qc� W$av�dE`0
„ «yyEm"Ec��i .Y
a°io�y �'>m$'E 'o
E FE
q L m s O O
='Sa m
�0 ° L Q>
U.
SgcEi.>B... �s
an,Q Qs o.°T$EoogE
y
> €aI< <Et
E a�
m Em E > _
$cin3 air nti'o
s
Y
E
u
m
Y
v
pRIGINAL
rt
� C
ORIGINAL
T
C
v
y m
�
c
—
m
•
y
u
°
c
¢ h
M
y=
w y
mm
a
€
mss
mmgw�
`o
g
Did
y
m
V n
L` tia
o A
E?
22
Fe
a�a
yd
m
u
��aa�
o
G
E
Ss''
E °
°
•
°L'
a a
B A.
'S v
E
o o,y
3Hmo
9w
P
GO6
CVi G.
W�6y
-•
O
''1yY
u0i
E O C
p'mi933
p H fp O
`.5
H 6
y
O
V O
O 9 H
O y 6
OnH
m
u
a O U
gs=
o o
'L
w
w
� a
rt
� C
ORIGINAL
j
c
6 p O
7
T
Y m L 9W G
m
m
= m
p
0
O � 6 G
O
2
C
? 'T N Z
C O W p > q N
9
D�' s ° a3�
w
E
uE °9
E
g "g
a� mE
F E
h d
m ci C
.!
V
N M
mF�
G
�",Yp
L
y6 �' Pfd^
a•O
J C9Y
n•° �,S_y .°
O.°.O � F9 �FOW
m
N
NNNN�
C m 0DU ❑
qp=
W C° D`G'
E'a Z
'aEV
C
F .L
y J m y
6'p°p
O
E O
q N o
9 y
p
Y
m
Y W C
W 4 W W
L U K
7 C ui
9 LO'
4 u0i
6 V L
O i °� �
9 Y � E� Y. ;
y�
n
°rd
m 3
5
8'
Z5
•$ d o
"' Ya• y; u S
2
a• .' Y o
4 y v e 9
w -p°, v_ U .� V
C
V
pG
c S
m,Z3d
°•i' ° E
II
° -�°ua
m
E��m. 155 a
°mom
b
�_.'
1
9�
Y'
> 6
C° O O 9 �' u
O
4'rjf m_
y0 T^ y
C G
��'a m mY
U—
o °a3
As° Leo.
m of o.mU° Em
j
c
3
a
x
a
m
e
e
.e
e
F
V
a
C �
e
o
E °
Ce
E 'a
[- E
u
cv
.�o
v
E m 4=
g a V
t V o U
m c o v
e u 'O
9 FAQ C V`
9-
o C= E
n' >_ ,g t_
e o u
9
E
E m
= s g n
w
E°
y
C
—
t° �'
ep '"
`o ❑ e
Q t '� q c .. e
m �
� ,o 0 o
N
O Q15
T L 3 d G
-�o
�o°. iia "�'�o ce3
>8dp��w
W
_
`o
p8V
4
5
o
E
ggq
e
n
0¢
E
L
�
o
e 3 '.° a °�� F; k �
e
� 4°• r y � �� e c'°
g 3 o L E
=3.°•s
fu
53
e
o
EuV�uLCa'eo
i V
tJ
U
a1 PGr W$ ac : 8a3a
�`� EO
E$ opt �n�O.mm�
9 S o n0
=
Wn3
9
a
e
3 0
�0.
iE
,U
I
of
iV
im
I G
Y
I O
I =
�P
m
0
IRIGINAL
c
nRIGINAI
.s
e
w
0
m
e
O
e
!O
G
a
a e
4•'Q
e
a°
•
e=
E
fi 9
F%
e
o A.
° K=
m=
c
_
$' g r • y
u
e_
13
;
5 u
m$
G 9 C W
C Ij
4
E
E
vV O
Y O L
O 6 O E
p
�
W 66T
y`j a 5
N p! yC
u 9 3
.cp
yy
m 3 t 3$
7
9° 2 m o
$ ffi
a a o c m c$
w o
aL^ E
a o C E•
°'
c
2
o
�v
E
�arys•
v'- Y y
e
�' E.�'.y5 o g N
''° $ u =_
av'o
ffi 0 Y°i
V
O V+ V
9
p 9 y W O=
W 'i N
F' 6 9
u �•
b C
O C 6 G>
G
s°,uo=
'Es EL u'
_°'E uE �yEo
<NE
r
x E 3 s_
'- e..°_
"a c• a D n
yU=
ffi p,
gGm�Cy�6�
�Vm,
�
C3.O�F•C
90.R.�69
aO$
nv
c 3E }L�
°m E}FT'
E C
` a.
A•
°_
0 0 N
0 m T 6 G. O C d^
e' 6& C
a � w Es o.
UU y
..9 E_
cEa
v 3 c
U¢g
=
B
c
nRIGINAI
e
.e
.e
0
f
a
S
e
r
e
�e
eeF ..
w
,L c
�59 O C E CFY y 6 i. Tyj
6 'O
.}O1 'T L 4 O
;
a T °- e t °
d d
72 o C w m e S
'c
� a_
0b
zaa s
vi
ji _
'pop c m
z A
o y o� y� b
Ci R m L ap 9 LuOi C ,LT 0 C N ;O C m d
O C rOn ii
V L 4 m 0 3 d E V 1 6 b V F L•
u E e c o g' o 2 o c •o
E
=
0 o dS u
a
o
s
q T C d Y '8 w p tQ qp p
_ L C
21 �C�SL CUiy
6. 66 gg
6vr p O _ E _yC J 8
Y y« pO E W q L° Y s 6 w W •�
E fV y
I w � 00 6 V E G� �
S
[.°cl
Y O., p 9 O CCU Y pp G O O ��A Vi Y
m. n a o a p
fiE9..DOy G _?;$'W
cc8 ocaccvnu woesp@ aR rg
e— °nuEou o $Y. Cs q u u
� a a v s E E N r
E
q QEQ_s u•3 -a"� yo- yaa � sa�u
G (N T C_ V 6
O 9 Q Q S •ten OVO a. E y 6 2, ° p> _ L y E 6 e
O.
� Y
e
4 .
W V L
g
G8
Y Y
V
Y �
Sd
E
o c
Y
C O
oy
v F
ORIGINAL
a`O
y
�
.p.
Y
a
3
9
2
m
r
0
m
e
°
Q
m
e
c o
u
d
9
A
p
m.5
o $
U
°
`
C
'z,
`p
Y
236EO
'v
-
°�E °3_'E 2�.E
a3
E�
wu2
VO_
jev°
ro
L7
pOOOL'J
OCnOO
p'O3
yJmE
T9
p�
1.E
'�
E
`z' v
fp
3
°
E
m
o
s E c y
eob s
s
�. t 9
O� T O C C 'n L
S •� ° U
O 'S 'j
.� L
9 _TI
}
E b °
`�
y
Va
,��' ti C .° 09 d 6 m 'c«
v .., _ 3 o tai i c '« .3 E
'^
t
° � y
> r6°
°u 2 ?�
U 6
_ ' °
3
>
`O
6 V
'J
Jz u L °. _J _ 40'O
O9
a°i 69
por$'v
?-. V Z
La
'�' 1= a• $
m
6
C
S
O
.$
C Y
OE y r 9
9 =
6 A
O U
Y
!�i
c
'CC
3
Si G
u lO y
`
rU N L Ep 5 Cp C V 9 O J
W
C
L
A F
9
N u C
61:
O p
G.'E
y
T `� i
O a
G
2
E 0 2$
e
h° v a 'E 'v �.°. Et_
E o o 5
E? o
y u
u
6 U U m
U
`� u E 42 4: F. 5 2` m$
$ n t
S E
i
iE3
C
a
e
QY
L4
U
yo
m
a n y $>
s z
z°
o E 138
'u 3 2
QE
50
°e� o
yd Y
°
u
a o w
o
a r c
e
s L s$
o
s F s$ c v
�$
V
cS
o
0 on
YG
vr, d ei c.i p
:F
T
e> o E Y 6 ° a Q
E
C a D q S o K° o a z
e
la, ,� ,$
ffi
c
o '$
g u°
a m u 5
E'EL y
°c
a.W °9 m5Yi�r €s
a y. ES
EEN g
rJ'
?A�90
Ej
3 'O Y G
p
yi z w p ,�_+ V W G 9
Y
W 'J O
y'
W_
L
riia N
Y V
15 L Z_ L-0 O y $
u
E a E
N h v
Z.° a= .y ` s
i m N c
E
u°
c q a
.°
o$ ° .$
y °_ E .� 6 Ec'
3
p 'J
Q y Y = V O y$
H
p A
6 N 8 9 4�i O Al Y C
GO
yy
OC w Y Y Y 5� O
°_ni�L
E_
a .L E.
G 6 E O !0 C O 'S F.
� 'v.P„�V
T L
Ys E. CU
E
Q L' o. oZ�'ia'� $U
a`a Sp a
C°
i
� E
t
w
n
e
M
x
QY
L4
U
W T pp C
K q 6 O
L dp N 9
O m yu Y,1
U 'E
9
m O
N 6 a
G T+
E c
'E°- 0
6q
dx^.
0
OO 9 a W v C W" Al O
v_ m E c
N,a
v
>N s ve Ei v 99 n9
3'5
c $ E p
;S E'm gy °v4 D °e c8•w =3 °y� €r v= c
o s 'x� u v°
U °o� a���E E 3
„
Y c py �,y EU o2pr a� V Ogv'�y _��_moza E� �$
u'� o °r cy
v C E-ar
aFo�t -2:3 e23ma
a o
L$''v $v v.c��
z3 �,egy�9= wo °e
o.
x
C m
6 '
R
a`
U
—m
V
E
U
Y
0
2
C
w
i ::S
M
a
T C
� �
9
w $
�
d
d
N
u
6 S C
O
°
C
µj
6
9 Ci F
O
m O a
«
�q
u
^+
U
j C
'.3 ❑ .� v
e '5
E
ee
ua N6
Va2Jdm'o
„;
�U
E
c
yE
aR c o
�
rg
fi
°
IE H >
T
E 5
Fe
as
yd m
y
Ys Fm T
q6q0
L=j �a
8C
`Q
3
5 .Ex
°C
F
o G
C «uq
E
yE_p'
m YG Q
o
C13 e
2f
>uo$
°'
Emy, EO
ueE
u3 n
�v�OC O.u�w uCEGc «'«m° -.5
E
R
mr�
Sod Eo", c„'.Ti m.�
a
am HE m If
Qa
ohm
«_
el'
✓� O N y �`OO W T_n
`oaN
«`�a 63
e6E «ca 0'cov�iE'Ei
s
>u31A
E9 � � G °
`�
01 �'9, °o¢$
'�
c �yy
y'o
r°m Oe 'G tEc.p ckm
Y$ �E�'
'o
Ti
ffi>_
oy E
c V
°
E �' m
g $ o u c h
m. S m�
o u d
0..,�sa. C'c c�L « °.xom
5'
i:. '-S E NmEo
'E u C =
�i'o°. c y o m° '6d 6w u E a`i
a$
y rJ
o> 2 E
a
C= $ E a E am 3 L�
m°
y
o
ye
G '� 1J' �J' �. EE £ L p ;a
p q L
W p.
pG
E '7 pp C .m
cu..._ ti?
Eas
c
c? -a
6'6 R C? W
a s>'U�EE
c
fiE$NOU�q
x
G
za
m°
E
U
E
E
o c
G O
h„
3 v
ORIGINAL
R
O C
ORIGINAL
C
N
app
a
y
0
'eTYC$o'E
2 aE
C
Oa
rrn .p O
a
'v E c
no
ZEU
'NEO
'� oE m
b$
°u b $
e
s E C
f
2'5 N
m
a a V
E
$
° E c
AM
Y
yea
o
�j
C
C
O C
C
9
& Y
N
C
O E
LEmO
U
Q 2
aoE
E(j
E.2 °o
w Z
o y o E
o v o
6'
E
c
c g
o
s
'a S o
a
x 'v o
°L"v
E.
a
F` F
[-
=
=
0 � E uYi ❑
�
F�
d ai
u
d
ei
a
5 c$ T r
.�
'3 y
ra
o c o
SY, u
�A ° D w m ;o `o $
-_ m g
E o$
.°�
a$
m
E
o E
E
$mv o.E u oN
° T
s2
'
5a9
pyE
oVa
6
p
E
g y
�
p
O,
Y Q
n
`o
Ems°,
zq
E- v
Y °$
E
E.
n T
'F N
< a s o i°
!
P.
`� `�
P
e a
74i
$p[ N
3 r�
.N
YVp
E
°m o `° °$ .0 yr; 3
E
3
$
3 r
3 r V
E O t0
M Y V Y
E G=
N
6 O C
.p� a t O {L
i 9 V A
,C
Y L
Y
a$
E a
O
9 m Y
41
0.
Ve. Y°. S 7 �g
C d
r
C
ic.ome,g$Ei
u
T v
E5 °soa',$
em`E3,
CE
m
C L y
qo
Y
E
y a
C
•{ 9 yQ°' d u
e
a
$ E a
a
0 o
y
q
E o
E
EE
s$'
a
6
e
R
O C
ORIGINAL
m-'
a`
e E
8 d
m E
c E
`o
°O c
Y
C O
p x
ma,
m
- o
YHIG!NAL
W
u
4
2
C
V Ov
p
9
° U
O
C
C
L>`'O
O_ �'
W
0
Y
a
a
E s
q� o o
€
E p 9p
e e
E.
otl
pNp 4N C
b� G Q yi
L
E
°
E u
N Z
8w9
—a
„E
ym
u
E
o
c
G
o
h E' o
.00
0
0
nL
_nom V
'O V C o
p'q
O
u o
A
L'
`off o
w o
u N
ea
8hG
am
°Em
mL °y
«I
H
«
3
cl$
,E
E
o
�BLa
t, BAmE
a¢Vm
3U
a
C
V
j
m
k
qqq
CQ�
E a
O� j
K°69Oq
V
L
a y
1J"
= Y5 C_ L
OEO 4 p
�Yy t0
9
o�
°WNpawl
y
c C
'°mrBE`Gv�
C
'y
O '
t
a
0
a'I
9
c
=�gw
`�Y Eo
a
u o
.8
m
8
E°
w
8
c
e
o
a E
o E
a
m$"
W d
C 0
8°-
`
A
3
a
W
v
y
Cv`'g�G
m
°E
$'38'2
L
yGG
0��y0��' o c y Cl
°�
9
� y 9 y Y
O Y E
D G
'1
u
U m
c
°�
E
O
J 3 s$
Ei, `" a
G=
s G o o '�
�2 U y w V
A n
E S
o
U
u
C C
6
e
�
m-'
a`
e E
8 d
m E
c E
`o
°O c
Y
C O
p x
ma,
m
- o
YHIG!NAL
s
O
a
6 C
�a
O
Y �
eg
�e
F+ E
m
e°
E
G
a
8
k
.rj
s
m
V.
3
S
w
C
S
C
T
C
N
P
yY
3
s
0
n
0
O
m
u
O
A W
L
a�
N N°p Y N
m mm $
o'E o qq
G a u 3
€ U
G
w
d �
a
y 9
Y
� � c
9 0
6 O w
568'3
E
L Y
v_
o a
0 0
L = y
a
3 " jq
a'
S 6❑
m
h
= tC O
W'0 m Q
C m
p C
O 6 9
c
9 _
C
3 a °m
� O
� €v
0 N O
a
u m o
E a ck
..cc Y uX
6 m U
"c oO5
o C °
64
mCd E v3 E'P+a9 y,
dmsv�'�o€a� °U
6'S• u O y— Y Y
°03 E6�=mg =g °aoE
A N Cl 3 O E 5 E c.a N
ugE
9 �$ y3c9.h yo�
Y O m 'O ° 4Tj 4 •E h Os p
Ec e;e
N yC O Is1r� � Ri
�g " >$3�SEwd3�o
V
Y
C
q V
€
o c
�s
o =
P
T
m
c
v c
5
a
m
C m
Y 3 m
u
`a
9 C q C
y
Qi
U i U
p
C
Y N r
40 6
s
Y
a
4�
Q
fL
U
ugE
9 �$ y3c9.h yo�
Y O m 'O ° 4Tj 4 •E h Os p
Ec e;e
N yC O Is1r� � Ri
�g " >$3�SEwd3�o
V
Y
C
q V
€
o c
�s
o =
P
1
T O
O 6 M
W W �
_V. y
-
�+ G
m o
pW T
m cwgg'
v?
go
4• G
O C V Q � c y
@ 'aW
°� y
E m u m m x A i i
me
y�
V.Eyco 5� =E E'a
A
c
0
00 y $ G 'W Y m
Y^ U m 'yY-• 3
Q
•�
,yl-`
.f
o m E
a
o�
0m yyr�
5c N
a b •'
" °a—' y 2
m
gE6
•TnY�°�o °b9r3c
ry o.o� o
V
�_
3
u
p'
`o s $
iv
y�.So
°
gQoc
q 9
� e ^ ^
's
V
3E3 � '09oG SO
m
A
O
Oog
E r
o
Z E
_
b�cAsBY
"v
E
m
4 y
G
C>
c
o
N�
J C
�U
n
a�
mE
?U
i c
Y
o
Wq
r
R
ORIGINAL
_
�
T
C
�
>
P
m
O
o
$
Q
6
a
C
6
O
9
G
W
n
6
V
O
V
6 O
°
'O
um'
m'
r9av
a
a�a
y
4
V
°-N°6
UE
p,
a$
EFEq a
y
c
L'
d y
E °•
Y
'L
O
y
O� G il. 6
°
6
p
�•
F
0
vi 0°0 L
4 W c
ti 3
E
�u"
`0
T o
�
7
N TyOg
X
i3 o'y
9 o.
00
moo
So�N3
�
a
E
Y
V
°e
° °''�' H
a�
�
•° �
m � o,
m
a °
o ds'E
,�
O
s
m
J
k n y
m
E
u nts
s w m
x
s .
a
r°
R
ORIGINAL
V
T
_
pT
O
CT
6
q
A
�
6 G
9
W
•
C
C
rN
9 C
'
W
q
��•
y
O�
y
f{ G
o
Em
a�
L
4 v0 p
u s
Yi
m� G u
uT.
K
6 �� v
O�
5 Q C
•p
°° �:
�6
g�g''i
3
° .E = Q
a a
s`'-g
a a
F E
h Q
LC
U
i A
$
pc_
0. L L gi
5°
5�'35=w c
C
Sm3os p'E
�cSS
u`-_m2
o? qu
p °
P E o
''��
'p
m O
,o
A °
E 35 .�°. °m� c
x
Coon
U o o =o
8
m
a c .5
U
8
C ° 6
y W lO0
°JU
E5
15
E
V
Y
N
6 T •° �€ �i
�
W
O 6�
W r C W
N
T�
m oo
15
Z G
i�5a "3. "
�
eau
G
` �
6
N
0
G
s 'e
ma
8 m
Uyy
G
E
o
Y
C O
LLm a
L y
w
r
y
`o
3
�`
a
s
ac
p
a
4:
O
O
m
�
O
V
a
$
O
6
L
r
e=
E
u �
fie °w
u
F
[O L_ E O YW'
13°m
°
A�'O
�3 o d
V
9ui,
E
°E O'r� -v
=y °wg.
°
We
.Z c
aFwb a c °
lu'�y6G
ERyO
C'Ui
Loy
CWe
D
Gyq
N� ==O
E C0 6
E
mEaw
{p'�'i9'q
O L
6
O
E W
9 y Y G
U
'c
Y
O` 0w0
ooW$
O
W �s OGm.q 3'9 oyTJi
off
0
m O
'W 6 y 0
a O C 9
E 9
W O iS
C
4 3 W O O v t r�ii
ap
0
� ° m�'� �
C C W
Cffi
LW TUV
O
�Cp
-y u pNNC
��. a�� .H
C
'yi U
CE
d.�
466LU
0630
Qm69E
1.y
U.U�O'.V
O'S.wA �Ur V£a
0'i
a40
n
w
6
fi
U
V
E
V
m
0
Y
O
' aGINAL
p
T
U
U
W
Y
U
Y
_O
Iq
N
U
SSS
j UGIA
N'Ga WO
NCO
e
a o
v 9 osG�oJJ s
r� v U
ai0'
= v °ov
Nxc
a
jf
_
io
N
�3FUH
ze
vv�
o E go c
o?«c LL$ c �=
°'•�Ewr 'o0
E 0
,o„m
°ov
U 3
my 2'
5 E
c
d E
RI u 4 w O . m C
y
o.ra_`1T
9°y3
0 0
2
u E
u y Fi v g o
3 0
Ew�o�
u� 9 'O
L a Q> i y rJ C 6 tom] 3 E .`
O E
C �✓ °. Y C i C�
El
C° C
u m yoq
W n O J o .a .o o w 'S
C
a °m' n
E b 9 L GAy.
N
N4
>K.�O
FL1
PQ O-S
Y
C a
o,$�'
LL
5
pO
q m ?0
N u
a
E �
e
G L
;w° �F =.. 05 €
N
rrn �' _ C
�
� —�p ri.
C
�JE
y n N
�Ja�
�Ja
p
V mU $
F 5 C,'•; 7 q m -L C
G 0
C 0
C
N
v
S3.2 E'N -a °o u �_
a0 �'
um
F
um_ a
u
F. c' n 6N E 1 n$Ecu'a
ry
R
p
T
U
U
W
Y
U
Y
_O
Iq
N
9
O
s
0
m
,
.o
'E
0
f
a
O T
8 O
O
r 'L
e "=
eE
F
o� o��
a
=
E E
v 2 E _9
yy'� m
t c v E
A-0 3 p
N m
w
O
1]
NO 0 G O°
jS
pp
qy
CC CC CC p
CC CC pp
C pp
O> C L m
°
N s° s° c°
w
6
E
z in
—C JAL
m
0
A
m
e
`e
"e
e
a
e
Leo
e
L
u �
E °
E
E o
F E
o °o `o
$ o
$ o^
0. um U. c
E E
°' '� ° E
°' a
F a3 Z
o
$ Q=Q
=
m $
c a o
°-
° e
c wo
$
U.
�
—°
0=
6 0 0
1 9
N u. j c
$
,aF�
r�
a 0 8
v = >
�C,°
$�.9mL
oZ
g39?
o 3cr60
but
vE3
a0 °c
l�
J o$
Fa' t °,
K >
o O =
�v yc c
_ =O
e C
A L
s1LU.DB�
T
TN
T•_ W
'a `0
L = =
A W =
AT 009
eT OOV
m
a reU. ao' o
a S o
a
0
n
E
m
0
«
T
u0.
6
a
W
wo
E
c
o
S
°c
0
m
O
W
rtlea
�'O�a�
V 3 F V F
�
y
9 tl=
tl E
YEEJ 0 1
O %0
4=
C
6
°-
_ v`°
O
F
L O
i
o
o
vOr
�oC
E3�
s
°c o
aaE�o
=3c
a
�
G
G?
� Qi W�
4�
O 'J ���
W
.� '$' � V
µ (%
n Z
tl F 6 w� L 6 y '•f
= C
u' c ioiga
°
am�oo
°c
o
nV ��ao:
nwKm3
�°.i�nv.
gE,_Evi'E :_SnE
xa5i5 �cWO
i
Q
a
a
a
E
�
c
`RIGINAL
Y
o3
0
A�
E La
G
iE
£�£
rSSg
EA
ow
30
9
°Q
eo
$V
tl
t2
uws
E
a
v o
.> L
.e Ti m E
•> R
c
C
F3'3r8��r3�
6
O
rya
8 O
q 6 J N 6
.0 M M F
6
6 E k�
k
w
It
y
Y O -
m
F Dv
FE cC
F of
E n
y
O O C C
O L°
pp Y C
G O C G
O Y qG L
OOY
Y� 0
9p
qqO
N O O
G L
Q&
O
pW
C�
O _9 $ 00 6
O y
V
O � •'J
p'y'
p
E
ii
3 o
Z c §Y ap
5 y
o
E N
3
E
3$
3
Q❑ 9-
E u c
Q
.reL3
0. Y E
>❑ Z o
> 0
a C
E
G 0 8
E
'—'
w Z
w o
Z
Ow6
L
c
°O
o '5
4 0 3
a .0
G°
a�Om�oo°�aKOa��3
�
E.�awQ�d'Ci0°w
oc
aS �5�a�oa
L
w
n
E
c
`RIGINAL
�6
0
v
ORI
� Y
�a
�o
U
G _
aE
E
aU
m
J C
0
NF9
�T
m
0
;INAL
a
z
e
V
V
r✓
O
s
C
w
A
e
A
e
B
'
F
C
Y
a
C
E
c
0
W
�
e °
y L
4
Y W
E �
C
m
Y
T
Y
6
A
F =
�
9
3
O
�
b
O
j
9
U
�
G
P
C
U
q
m
x
p
L
L
0: 9
m
k
L
C
O
W .
e
�w
�6
0
v
ORI
� Y
�a
�o
U
G _
aE
E
aU
m
J C
0
NF9
�T
m
0
;INAL
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
for
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project
(GPA/ZC 13 -0417)
Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2007101067)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the draft and final
environmental impact reports (EIRs) for the SR 99/1tlosking Commercial Center Project, as well as
additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings. The final EIR is hereby incorporated by
reference and is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Bakersfield Community
Development Department 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, and on the Departmental
webpage.
SECTION II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department issued a notice of preparation of a draft
EIR on November 5, 2014. Based on the initial study and notice of preparation, a determination was made
that the final EIR would contain a comprehensive analysis of environmental issues identified in Appendix
G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, excluding those screened out during
the notice of preparation. With respect to all impacts identified w `less than significant" or as having "no
impact" in the final EIR, the City of Bakersfield finds that those impacts have been described accurately
and are less than significant or have no impact. Despite concluding that certain impacts would be less than
significant or would have no impact, the final EIR nonetheless incorporates mitigation measures that
direct compliance with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the City of Bakersfield
FiMi,gs fFact-Sation 15091 Page lofri October 2015
SR Wfflviking Commercial Cancer Project
sA`aa
b
" R C, PQAL
General Plan, or other adopted regulations. The City of Bakersfield finds that these effects are less than
significant or have no impact before and after implementation of these mitigation measures.
In addition, some impacts in the final EIR were found to be "significant" but were able to be mitigated to
less- than - significant levels, and others were found to be "significant and unavoidable." The City of
Bakersfield finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant with the
implementation of mitigation or are significant and unavoidable.
AESTHETICS AND URBAN DECAY
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less - Than - Significant Impact on the Environment
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings. (Impact AUD -1)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be
Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Sienificant Effect
The proposed project would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area. (Impact AUD -2)
Description of Simificant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts from an increase in nighttime lighting;
however, because significant visual resources are not present and current residents have a very poor view
or no view at all, the proposed project would not significantly affect nighttime views in the area. Two
major causes of ambient light pollution that could be generated by the proposed project are glare and spill
light.
As pan of the proposed project, a number of new lighting sources would be introduced on the project site.
These would include various internally illuminated or indirectly illuminated business wall signs,
internally illuminated shopping center entrance pylon signs, and shielded, downward - directed parking lot
pole lighting. During nighttime operations, headlights from the parking lots and from the increased traffic
along South H Street and Husking Avenue would be a common light source. Some light also would
emanate from the business interiors through windows and entrances. In addition, for nighttime safety
purposes, limited downward- directed exterior wall lighting is likely to be proposed at building comers
and in the rear loading areas. The only residents who would directly view the new sources of lighting are
inhabitants of the second story of seven two-story homes on the east side of South H Street. Other
residents would not view the direct new lighting sources due to the existing 6-fom -high perimeter wall
that separates the lots from the Kern Island Canal.
Findings of Fecl -Soon 15091 Pogo 2 o 72 pc[owmis
SR 99Mosking Commercial Center "M
��i
In accordance with the goals and policies previously outlined, lights would be focused downward and
would not be directed offsite. As part of the proposed project, light fixtures would be aimed and adjusted
as necessary, and reflector shields, louvers, and hoods would be installed to reduce glare. These measures,
in addition to using directional lighting, would minimize light pollution, and would direct light away from
adjacent properties and road rights -of -way. A lighting plan would be required for the proposed project, as
detailed in the City's zoning ordinance. In its review of the lighting plan, the City would stipulate what
lighting standards would be applied to the entire proposed project. Compliance with the City's light
standards would avoid significantly adverse lighting impacts. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures
MM AUD-I and MM AUD-2, however, would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. No
additional mitigation measures are proposed.
Findine
The project would create a new source of substantial light or glare. These impacts would be reduced to a
less - than - significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce any new
source of substantial light or glare. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AUD -I and MM AUD-
2, below, would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels.
MM AUD-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence
the City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
(a) Minimize Spill Light All onsite lighting standards and exterior luminaries shall be fitted
with filtering louvers, hoods and/or similar technology to minimize spill light to adjacent
properties and to reduce light from emitting above the horizontal plane of individual light
fixtures.
MM AUD-2. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for each Phase of
development, the project proponent shall provide evidence to the City of Bakersfield Planning
Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
(a) Ensure Fixtures Properly Configured. The project proponent shall ensure that a nighttime
evaluation is conducted by a qualified professional to ensure that spillover light and glare are
avoided, and shall make adjustments if needed to fixture configuration to ensure that spill
over light is minimized. The project proponent shall provide a copy of the final testing
results to the City of Bakersfield for review.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less- Tlran-
Significant Level.
The project would have no environmental effects on visual and aesthetic resources that cannot be
mitigated to a less- than - significant level.
Findings of Fact - Station 15091 Poge3ofn Octo 2015
SR 99MOSking Commercial Crnw Project
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Signifrcant Impact on the Environment.
Impacts on visual and aesthetic resources are typically limited to a given site or viewshed because a
project's changes to the landscape are fairly localized. Exceptions may occur if there are impacts on
scenic vistas or areas that are visible from far distances, or if the proposed project has the potential to
affect aesthetics over a wider geographic area.
A number of development projects are proposed in both the City and Kern County land adjacent to and
within the vicinity of the proposed project area. The cumulative aesthetic impact from development of
these projects would substantially change the visual landscape from primarily oval to more suburban in
character, such as the approved health club and convenience market on Panama Lane, a trailer sales/shop
building on Silver Dollar Way, several religious facilities in the surrounding area, and a 6,000- square -foot
warehouse building. The area surrounding the project is tmnsitioning from extensive agricultural use to
primarily residential and commercial uses that are typical of an urban setting. However, the conversion of
land from one type of use to another does not necessarily constitute a significant impact.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the EIP, the proposed project is consistent with
land use plans and policies. Additionally, the proposed project site and its surrounding area do not contain
scenic resources, such as hills, canyons, or other unique topographic features, and are not located in the
vicinity of designated or eligible scenic highways; therefore, the project would not contribute to
cumulative impacts on these kinds of resources. New development in the area will undergo thorough
development review by the City and Kern County, which requires visual amenities to be integrated into
architectural elements and landscaping.
Cumulative projects would also contribute to an increase in the general lighting environment through the
introduction of new streetlights, commercial signs, parking lot lighting, and general security lighting.
Additionally, other projects in the region could include sports parks with nighttime field lighting. Each
cumulative project would be required to comply with the City's and Kern County's lighting standards to
minimize light pollution, spill light, and glare, which would reduce impacts from these areas to less -than-
significant levels. Therefore, the cumulative contribution from the proposed project would not be
considerable.
The cumulative impact analysis related to potential urban blight from urban decay was conducted by
Alfred Gobar Associates by collecting future retail and lodging developments contemplated in the
Bakersfield area. Present and future cumulative retail development in the area is estimated at about 2.08
million square feet; however, the cumulative market demand for retail is anticipated to exceed the supply
by about 1.94 million square feet. As such, cumulative impacts related to retail would remain less than
significant.
With respect to the cumulative effect on lodging facilities, only one known future unscheduled lodging
facility is contemplated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The unscheduled future project is
contemplated as a 104 -room upper - midscale facility in the Oildale area, which is located 9 miles north of
the proposed project. If developed, it is likely this future hotel would compete for a share of upscale
lodging potential. The market outlook for upscale lodging in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area indicates
another 475 upscale rooms could be added to the supply of upscale hotels by 2019 without adversely
Findings of FM -Section 15091 Poge4of72 October 2015
SR 99 /14.king Commercial Center Fr pa
`fir: kp
O
1,RIGINAL.
affecting precedent sales performance of existing facilities (2,323 existing upscale rooms in 18 hotel
facilities). It is anticipated that lodging activity within the SR 99/liosking Commercial Center Project will
include a 120 -room facility targeting an upscale lodging experience and a 120 -room facility targeting a
midscale - economy lodging experience. Assuming all 240 rooms hosted within the project compete for
upscale lodging support, enough residual potential is indicated by 2019 to add 240 upscale rooms within
the project and another 104 upscale rooms at the Oildale location (344 rooms total) without adversely
affecting occupancy performance within existing hotels. Therefore, the project's contribution to
cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of th e Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would have no cumulative effects related to aesthetics and urban decay that would have a
significant impact.
AER QUALITY
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less- Than- Signifcant Impact on the Environment
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan. (Impact AQ -1)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be
Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Si mificant Effect
The proposed project would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation. (Impact AQ-2)
Description of Significant Impact
Short-term emissions would be generated during the construction phase of the project and would be short
in duration (temporary), without lasting impacts on air quality. Sources of short-term construction
emissions would be related to earth - moving activities, travel by construction equipment, exhaust from
construction equipment, architectural coatings, asphalt paving, and mobile emissions associated with the
transport of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions generated by these sources were quantified
using CaIEEMod. Refer to the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix F) for model outputs and detailed
assumptions. Table 4.2 -7 in the EIR presents the project's short-term emissions based on the anticipated
construction period.
The construction emissions above represent a worst -case scenario for construction equipment, as
CaIEEMod defaults for type of equipment, quantity of equipment in the fleet, and power rating were
Findinpof FUt -Sawn 15091 Pwsofi2 October 2015
SR 99,11 a ., Cmno,.,W Cema Rojas
n,kFq
N
`1F21GIN,R1
utilized because no specific equipment listing was available at the time of this report. As calculated with
CaIEEMod using the default equipment listing, the short-term emissions are not predicted to exceed
SJVAPCD annual significance thresholds levels for ROG, NOx, or total PM.
While SJVAPCD's annual significance criteria would not be exceeded, Table 4.2 -7 in the EIR indicates
that construction activities would trigger the need for emission reductions consistent with the
requirements of SJVAPCD's Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, as construction emissions would be in
excess of 2.0 tons per year. Under SJVAPCD's Rule 9510, construction exhaust emissions equal to or
exceeding 2.0 tons of NOx or PMIO exhaust emissions are required to reduce NOx emissions by 20% and
PM10 exhaust emissions by 45 %, compared with the statewide fleet average (Mitigation Measure MM
AQ -1 (part (a)(ii))). In addition, Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 (part (a)(iii)) is required to further reduce
construction - related exhaust emissions.
Table 4.2 -8 in the EIR summarizes mitigated construction emissions consistent with Mitigation Measure
MM AQ-1 (part (a)). The emission estimates also assume implementation of fugitive dust best
management practices (BMPS), which are required pursuant to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and outlined in
Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1 (part (a)(i)). Compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII is required to
mitigate fugitive dust emissions to less - than - significant levels. Construction emissions would be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1(part (a)).
Long -term emissions would be caused by operational mobile transportation emissions from shoppers,
employees, maintenance equipment, and area source emissions from incidental activities related to
permanent utilities and services for the shopping center, such as paint reapplication and cleaning. Each
of these sources was taken into account in calculating the project's long -term operational emission,
which were quantified using CaIEEMod. Refer to the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix F) for
model outputs and detailed assumptions.
Estimated operational emission are summarized in Table 4.2 -9 in the EIR. It is important to note that
operational emissions in 2017 represent Phase I only, while operational emissions in 2019 represent both
Phases I and 11 (full operation).
As shown in Table 4.2 -9 in the EIR, operational NOx emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD's
significance thresholds during Phase I, while both ROG and NOx emission would exceed the
SJVAPCD's significance thresholds during Phase 11. The project would be subject to SJVAPCD's Rule
9510, which requires operational NOx and PM10 emission be reduced by 33.3% and 50 %, respectively
(see Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 (part (axii))). Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 also outlines several
area source strategies that would be implemented by the project applicant to reduce operational emission.
As shown in Table 4.2 -10, ROG and NOx emissions would still exceed SJVAPCD's significance
thresholds even with Rule 9510 compliance and implementation of onite mitigation. Accordingly, the
project proponent would enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA), as outlined in
Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 (part (c)), with SJVAPCD to reduce operational ROG and NOx emissions
below air district thresholds. Operational emission would be less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 (parts (a) and (c)) and MM AQ -2.
Table 4.2 -10 in the EIR summarizes operational emission with implementation of Mitigation Measures
MM AQ -1 (part(c)).
Findingaof Fact— Secaoo 15091 Pege6uf'f2 Ocwber 2015
A 99MOSkmg Commercial Center Project
o°
oilievaa-
Once Phase 1 of the project has been completed there will be 2 years (2017 -2018) where Phase 1
operational and Phase II construction emissions would overlap. Because construction and operation of the
proposed project would overlap, combined construction and operational emissions are presented in Table
4.2 -11 and compared with SJVAPCD's thresholds. Note that emissions estimates assume implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 (parts (a) and (c)) and MM AQ -2.
As shown in Table 4.2 -1 lin the EIR, combined construction and operational emissions would not exceed
SIVAPCD's ROG and NOx thresholds, and combined construction and operational emissions would be
less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ -1 (parts (a) and (c)) and MM
AQ-2.
Findine
The project's impacts resulting from violations of air quality standards or substantial contributions to an
existing or projected air quality violation will be mitigated to less- than - significant levels with the
implementation of mitigation measures, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts
associated with the air quality standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ -1 and MM
AQ-2, described below, would reduce impacts to less - than - significant levels.
MM AQ-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence to
the City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
(a) Obtain Required Permits. The project shall be required to comply with all applicable rules and
regulations as set forth by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( SJVAPCD). To
ensure compliance, the project proponent shall obtain all construction permits deemed necessary by
the SJVPACD and shall comply with all measures as specified by that agency including, but not
limited to:
(i) Fugitive Dust Control Plan. The project proponent shall develop a Fugitive Dust
Control Plan in accordance with SJVAACD Regulation VIII, Dust Control Requirements to
Control Construction Emissions of PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less). The
Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: A project description, a listing of all
anticipated fugitive dust emissions included in the project, and methods for adherence to all
regulations related to onsite watering, reduced vehicle speeds, track -out devices, surface
stabilization, fugitive dust control practices, free-board limits, mud/dirt accumulation, cease
grading during heightened wind speeds.
(ii) Indirect Source Review. The project proponent shall provide the City with proof that an
Indirect Source Review (ISR) application has been approved by SJVPACD, if deemed necessary
by that agency.
Findings of FM- Saon15091 Pegs 7of72 Wotor2015
SR 991H.k., Cammoo,n] Cenrer Project
(iii) Incorporate Measures to Reduce Construction Exhaust Emissions. The project
proponent shall require that all construction contractors to utilize Tier 3 engines for all off -road
construction equipment over 50 horsepower, unless such an engine is not available for a
particular item of equipment. In the event a Tier 3 engine is not available for any off -road engine
larger than 100 horsepower, that engine shall he equipped with retrofit controls that would
provide nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter emissions that are equivalent to a Tier 3
engine. Additionally, all equipment engines shall be maintained in good operating condition and
in proposed tune per manufacturers' specifications and shall be turned off when not in use, and
idling shall be minimized. All vehicles shall also comply with any measures specified by
SJVAPCD related to NOx emissions from on -road heavy -duty diesel haul vehicles.
(b) Valley Fever. The project proponent shall ensure that construction workers are educated
regarding the symptoms and potential health effects associated with exposure to Coccidioides immitis
fungus spores; and that construction workers are provided with personal protective equipment such as
respiratory equipment (masks), if requested. This will reduce potential exposure to airborne dust and
facilitate recognition of symptoms and earlier treatment of Valley Fever.
(c) Reduction of Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and NOx Emissions. The project proponent shall
submit evidence, verified by SJVAPCD, that demonstrates that the project's operational- related ROG
and NOx emissions will be reduced to below SJVAPCD's numeric threshold of 10 tons per year by
reducing ROG emissions by 7.17 tons and NOx emissions by 2.84 tons. These reductions can be
achieved by any combination of project design and/or via the project proponent entering into a
development mitigation contract (i.e., Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement, or VERA), with
SJVAPCD.
If a VERA is utilized a copy of the executed agreement and implementing reports will be provided to
the City to demonstrate compliance. Additionally, the project proponent shall Supply updated
documents if the requirements change as the VERA is reassessed by SJVAPCD at each phase of
project development. This requirement will be enforced and verified by SJVAPCD. The content
VERA payment fee for emissions is $93,500 per ton of NOx; payment fees vary by year (i.e., future
year payment fees for NOx could be more than the current price of $939500) and are sensitive to the
number of projects requiring emission reductions within the Same air basin. Fees will be calculated
and collected by SJVAPCD and will depend on the emissions required to be mitigated after all
Selected emission reduction projects are completed. The VERA shall identify the amount of emissions
to be reduced, in addition to the amount of funds to be paid to SJVAPCD by the project proponent to
implement emission reduction projects required for the project.
MM AQ-2. The project shall continuously comply with the items listed below during all operations
of the project and, prior to the issuance of Final Occupancy approval, the project proponent shall
provide evidence to the City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate methods for compliance
with the following:
(a) Implement Onsite Mitigation to Reduce Operational Emissions. The project proponents will
incorporate the following onsite mitigation into the project design:
Findings of Fm —Smion ISM hp g of72 October 2015
Sit 99Mo ing Commemiel Center Rojm
(i) Use low volatile organic compound (VOC) paint (non - residential interior).
(ii) Use low VOC paint (non - residential exterior).
(iii) Require the electrification of landscaping equipment, with a minimum of 3% of
lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws to be electrified.
Sigificant Effect
The proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Impact
AQ-3)
Description of Significant Im aMct
Particulate matter generated by the project may be inhaled and absorbed into the body's respiratory
system, which could increase the severity of asthma attacks and other lung diseases. The maximum
offsite, ground -level concentration of PM2.5 for the 24 -hour and annual periods was predicted using the
AERMOD dispersion software and the CaIEEMod operational outputs. The results of the modeling are
presented in Table 4.2 -12 in the EIR and compared with SJVAPCD's incremental PM2.5 concentration -
based significance thresholds.
As shown in Table 4.2 -12 in the EIR operation of the project would not result in localized PM
concentrations that exceed SJVAPCD's significance threshold. While construction activities would
generate PM from land disturbance activities and equipment usage, emissions would be short term and
cease once construction is complete. Moreover, fugitive dust emissions would be controlled through
compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (see Mitigation Measure MM AQ-a (part (axi))).
Consequently, exposure of sensitive receptors to localized particulate matter would be a less -than-
significant impact.
In addition, Table 4.2 -13 in the EIR summarizes predicted concentrations of NO2, S02, CO, PMI O, and
PM2.5, relative to the NAAQS and CAAQS. As indicated in Table 4.2 -13, predicted concentrations are
not anticipated to result in exceedances of the NAAQS nor CAAQS. Consequently, this impact is
considered less than significant.
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of
vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads
and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric
mixing; however, under inversion conditions prevalent in the valley, CO concentrations may be more
uniformly distributed over a broad area. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations
along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors. This
localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or hot - spots, even though concentrations at the
closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.
As discussed in Section 4.2.4.2 in the EIR, SJVAPCD has adopted screening criteria that provide a
conservative indication of whether project- generated traffic will exceed the CAAQS. Although the project
would be a substantial source of traffic (800,000 square feet of retail commercial), given the location of
Findings ofFect- Section 15091 PW 9 of)2 October 2015
SR 99ft*e , Commercial Center F iw
C�`iIG INP.L
the site and the future planned improvements, a traffic impact study (Appendix C) was prepared for this
project by Ruettgers & Schuler evaluating a total of 15 intersections (seven signalized and eight
unsignalized). Based on future programmed roadway improvements (restriping, signalization, and
roadway improvements for which the project would be required to contribute its fair share towards the
costs), all potentially affected intersections and roadway segments would operate at a level of service of C
or better. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not violate SJVAPCD's conservative
screening criteria for CO hot - spots. Consequently, exposure of sensitive receptors to CO hot spots would
be a less- than - significant impact.
Project construction would generate DPM, resulting in the exposure of nearby existing sensitive receptors
(e.g., residences) to increased DPM concentrations. Cancer health risks associated with exposure to diesel
exhaust are typically associated with chronic exposure, in which a 70 -year exposure period is assumed. In
addition, DPM concentrations, and, therefore, cancer health risks, dissipate as a function of distance from
the emissions source.
As described above, there are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site (see Table 4.2 -2 in
the EIR). DPM generated during construction may expose these receptors to increased health risks. The
greatest potential for DPM emissions would occur in 2016 (see Tables 4.2 -7 and 4.2 -8 in the EIR).
Overall, construction of the entire project would occur over a 4 -year period. This is well below the 70-
year exposure period typically associated with increased cancer health risks. Moreover, Mitigation
Measure MM AQ-1 (part (a)(iii)) would reduce DPM emissions by requiring use of EPA Tier 3 or cleaner
engines, while SJVAPCD Rule 9510 would require a 45% reduction in construction- related PMIO
exhaust emissions (Mitigation Measure MM AQ -2 (part (a)(ii))).
As indicated in Tables 4.2 -7 and 4.2 -8 in the EIR, construction activities would generate only minor
amounts of DPM; mitigated PMI O exhaust emissions are estimated to range from 0.09 and 0.15 pound
per day, with maximum emissions generated in 2016. Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well
below the 70 -year exposure period and advanced DPM controls (e.g., Tier 3 engines) would be
implemented, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk for exposed
persons or exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Consequently, construction - related DPM emissions
impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would result in emissions of TACs and would be located near existing residences;
therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from the proposed project is required.
Ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative estimate
of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a 70-
year lifetime. Please refer to the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix F of the EIR) for additional
assumptions and model outputs. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non - cancer
chronic and acute hazard indices, which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure.
Table 4.2 -14 in the EIR summarizes the predicted cancer and non -cancer risks and demonstrates that risks
at the point of maximum impact would not exceed SJVAPCD's significance levels of ten in one million
Findings of Fact — Section 15091 Page 10 of 72 Ootober2015
SR 99Mosking Commeaial Center Project
FYI
U
O
ORIGINAL
and 1.0, respectively, for the proposed project. Accordingly, operation of the project would not expose
sensitive receptors to increased health risks from DPM. This impact would be less than significant.
Disturbance of soil containing C. immitis could expose the receptors adjacent to the construction site to
spores known to cause Valley Fever. Areas endemic to C immitis are generally arid to semiarid with low
annual rainfall; as such, soil containing the fungus is commonly found in Southern California and
throughout the Central Valley. Table 4.2 -15 summarizes Valley Fever hospitalization rates between 2002
and 2010 in affected California counties and indicates that over 60% of Valley Fever cases have been in
people who live in the San Joaquin Valley, with Kem County being the most affected county in the state.
The presence of C. immitis in Kern County does not guarantee that construction activities would result in
increased incidence of Valley Fever. Propagation of C. immitis is dependent on climatic conditions, with
the potential for growth and surface exposure highest following early seasonal rains and long dry spells.
C. immitis spores can be released when filaments are disturbed by earthmoving activities, although
receptors must be exposed to and inhale the spores to be at increased risk of developing Valley Fever.
Moreover, exposure to C. immitis does not guarantee that an individual will become ill— pproximately
60% of people exposed to the fungal spores are asymptomatic and show no signs of an infection.
While there are a number of factors that influence receptor exposure and development of Valley Fever,
earthmoving activities during construction could release C. immitis spores if filaments are present and
other soil chemistry and climatic conditions are conducive to spore development. Receptors adjacent to
the construction area may therefore be exposed to increase risk of inhaling C. immitis spores and
subsequent development of Valley Fever. Dust- control measures are the primary defense against
infection. Compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 (part (a)(i)))
would avoid dusty conditions and reduce the risk of contracting Valley Fever through routine watering
and other controls. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 (part (b)) also requires construction workers to be
educated regarding the symptoms and potential health effects associated with exposure to C. immits.
Personal protective equipment will also be provided, if requested. Therefore, the impact of exposure of
sensitive receptors to increased Valley Fever risk during construction would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-I (parts (axi) and (b)).
Findine
All feasible and reasonable changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
to substantially lessen the potentially significant effects identified in the FIR.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce agricultural
impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-I would reduce impacts to less - than - significant
levels.
C. Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level
The project would have no environmental effects on air quality that cannot be mitigated to a less -than-
significant level.
Finchr, of Fam —S fion 15091 Pnge 11 of72 Ocwber 2015
SR 99M°°king Commercial Cel¢er Project
O�
F
OF11gK ?e'_
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less-Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
The SJVAPCD has identified project -level thresholds to evaluate impacts to air quality (see Section
4.2.4.2 of the EIR). In developing these thresholds, the air district considered levels at which project
emissions would be cumulatively considerable. As noted in the SJVAPCD's 2002 GAMAQI:
"Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact (am Section 4.3.2 of
the EIR — Thresholds of Significance for Impacts from Project Operations) [Table 3.2 -6 of the EIR]
would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of local pollutants
(CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the
project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards."
The criteria pollutant thresholds presented in Section 4.2.4.2 of the EIR, therefore, represent the
maximum emissions the project may generate before contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air
quality as determined by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, exceedances of the project -level thresholds would be
cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Impact AQ-2, construction and operational emissions
associated with the project are not expected to exceed the SJVAPCD's quantitative thresholds with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AQ-1 and MM -AQ-2, while Impact AQ -3 indicates
predicted ambient pollutant concentrations and health risks would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds.
Consequently, the project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
There are no cumulative impacts on air quality that would have a significant impact on the environment.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less -Than- Significant Impact on the Environment
The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Impact B10 -2)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Sh mifcant Effect
The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
FindmpdFect -Smfiw 15091 Page 12 ofn omro 2015
SR 99Moskin Comroemid Cmter Project
6Aic
o�
ORIGINAL_
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Impact BIG -
1)
Description of Siamificant Impact
The project site is highly disturbed and does not contain any undisturbed native habitat. No evidence of
the 20 CNDDB- listed special- status plant species were observed during the biological survey in February
2014 and the project site lacks suitable habitat to support any of these species. Given the substantial
ground disturbance from historic farming, grading activities, and illegal use of the project site, it is
unlikely that special- status annual plant species would be present. The proposed project would result in a
less - than- significant impact on special- status plant species.
There is a potential for the following six special- status wildlife species to occur on the project site:
Bakersfield legless lizard, borrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, white - tailed kite, American badger, and San
Joaquin kit fox. Two of these species are federally or state- listed species (San Joaquin kit fox [federally
listed as endangered and state - listed as threatened] and Swainson's hawk [state listed as threatened]), one
is a California fully protected species (white - tailed kite), and three are California Species of Special
Concern: burrowing owl, American badger, and Bakersfield legless lizard.
Potential San Joaquin kit fox dens were observed during the survey in 2008 and the updated survey in
2014. Existing small mammal burrows found on site could be used by burrowing owls. The project site
also provides low- quality habitat for Bakersfield legless lizard and American badger. The site does not
contain suitable nesting habitat for white - tailed kite or Swainson's hawk; however, the site does contain
low - quality foraging habitat for both raptor species. Therefore, indirect impacts in the form of the loss of
potential habitat (foraging only for white - tailed kite and Swainson's hawk) for these species would occur
at the project site. Additionally, the proposed project has the potential for direct impacts (e.g., mortality
by heavy construction equipment) or incidental take of San Joaquin kit fox, borrowing owl, American
badger, and Bakersfield legless lizard. The potential for San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl is
considered moderate to high. Direct impacts on either San Joaquin kit fox or borrowing owl would be
potentially significant. The potential for American badger and Bakersfield legless lizard to occur is low
because the habitat is of low quality. Because American badger and Bakersfield legless lizard have a low
potential to occur on the site, the potential for direct impacts is also low. If any individual American
badgers or Bakersfield legless lizards are affected, the number of affected individuals would be relatively
low and would not result in significant impacts on these two species.
The project site likely provides foraging habitat for raptors, including white - tailed kite and Swainson's
hawk, but not nesting opportunities. The harassment of nesting raptors (e.g., construction- related noise
and dust that causes nest abandonment) is considered indirect takel under the MBTA. However, the lack
of suitable nesting trees at the project site precludes nesting raptors at the site; therefore, indirect take of
t Indirect take is when en action does not ®use mortality (direct take), but does cause a secondary deleterious impact on a species (e g.,
haresonent by conswction raise and dust sufficient to cause nest abandonment).
Findings of FM— section 15091 Page ll oft2 October 2015
SR 99Mwking Commercial Comer Project
n
ORI ,IfJgL
nesting raptors would not occur. Also, because raptors are highly mobile and can readily leave
undesirable situations, the proposed project would not result in the direct take (e.g., mortality by
construction equipment) of raptor species. Overall, the site is generally poor foraging habitat for raptors
because of its proximity to adjacent urban development and SR 99. The associated noise, dust, and
general disturbance can adversely affect raptor species. Additionally, there are no large trees on the site.
The proposed project would result in a less- than - significant impact on raptors, including white - tailed kite
and Swainson's hawk.
Though the site does not include nesting habitat for raptors, the site does contain suitable nesting habitat
for ground- nesting birds and for other birds that may nest in the herbaceous cover provided on the project
site. Any construction activity that occurs during nesting bird season (typically February 15 through
September 15) has a potential to result in take (directly or indirectly) of a protected nest. Impacts
involving injury to or killing of any bird, damaging a nest, or otherwise causing nest failure be a violation
of California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and would be a significant impact.
If unmitigated, these potential indirect and direct impacts on special - status wildlife species are considered
significant. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2,
significant impacts on special- status species would be mitigated to less- than - significant levels.
Findine
The project would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special- Status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. These impacts would be reduced to a less -than-
significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures described below.
Brief Exclamation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special- Status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by CDF W or USFWS. In consideration of the known and expected use of the project site
by special - status wildlife species, impacts on special- status wildlife species would be significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM BIO-2, described below, would reduce
impacts to less- than - significant levels.
MM BIO-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence to the
City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
(a) Pay Development Impact Fees Pursuant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan. The project proponent shall pay fees pursuant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit, which includes coverage for the San Joaquin kit fox.
The payment of development impact fees is considered adequate mitigation under the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit to minimize impacts on special -
status species. The fees are placed in an account for habitat acquisition and management to be used by
the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Trust Group. Upon the
Findin,s of Feat —Sxuon 15091 Page 10 ofM Octalar2015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Center Project
j GPY n
s.
U n
OPIGINAL
payment of this fee as specified by the City of Bakersfield, the project applicant will become a sub -
permittee and will be allowed the incidental take of the species in accordance with state and federal
endangered species laws and mitigation requirements of all parties, including state, federal, and local
(City of Bakersfield and Kern County 2014, Incidental Take Permit No. 2081- 2013 - 058 -04).
(b) Conduct Preconstruction Clearance Survey. A biological clearance survey is required for San
Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl. The survey shall be completed according to the requirements of
the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit. All surveys must
be delivered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the CDFW, and the City of Bakersfield.
If the survey results find a covered species on the project site, a written Notice of Grading is required
at least 5 business days prim to any ground disturbance activities (excluding weekends and holidays).
The Notice of Grading shall only be submitted after all required minimization measures, according to
the Incidental Take Permit, are implemented.
(c) San Joaquin Kit Fox Avoidance and Den Excavation. If known, active, or natal San Joaquin kit
fox dens are identified during the survey, minimization measures identified in the Incidental Take
Permit for den avoidance must be demonstrated (Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
Incidental Take Permit Condition of Approval 7.5). If dens cannot be avoided, appropriate monitoring
and den excavation as described in Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Incidental
Take Permit Condition 7.6 will be adhered to.
(d) Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Avoidance and Passive Relocation. A focused survey
following the promcol described in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG
2012) will be conducted prior to the start of construction. If burrowing owls are identified on the
project site, occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through
August 31 for owls and other raptors). The non-disturbance buffer shall include a minimum 250 -foot
buffer zone around any occupied burrow unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFW verifies
through non - invasive methods that either (1) borrowing owls have not begun egg laying and
incubation, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of
independent survival. The sizes of individual buffers may be modified through coordination with the
CDFW based on site - specific conditions and existing disturbance levels. During the non - nesting
season or if the qualified biologist determines either (1) or (2) above, the project applicant will
coordinate with the CDFW to construct artificial burrows and passively relocate the owl(s). Passive
relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to alternate natural or
artificial barrows that are beyond 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) from the impact zone and that
are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls
(California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). Regarding passive relocation, the Borrowing Owl
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) state that:
"Owls should be excluded from borrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 50 in (approx.
160 feet) buffer zone by installing one -way doors in borrow entrances. One -way doors should be left
in place 48 hours to insure owls have left the burrow before excavation. One alternate natural or
artificial borrow should be provided for each borrow that will be excavated in the project impact
zone. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of alternate
barrows before excavating burrows in the immediate impact zone. Whenever possible, burrows
should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic
pipe or burlap bags should be inserted into the tunnels."
Findmpof Fact - Section 15091 Page 15.fn October 2015
SR 99Mwking Commercial Cwter Project
(e) Conduct "Tailgate" Environmental Education for All Construction Personnel. Prior to initial
groundbreaking a tailgate session shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to educate construction
personnel on relevant federal, state, and local laws related to potentially occurring special- status
species at the site. The tailgate session shall include training on identification of species that may be
found on the project site, the status of those species, and any legal protection afforded to those
species. Measures that are being implemented to protect those species will also be explained.
Personnel will be advised to report any special -status species or borrows promptly. A fact sheet
conveying this information will be prepared for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter
the project site.
(f) Cap and Inspections of Materials and Equipment. Material and equipment inspections shall be
conducted according to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Incidental Take
Permit. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a diameter 4 inches or greater
shall be properly capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin kit fox or other species. Any of
these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not capped shall be inspected prior to being
moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other species are not present
within the structure. If a covered species is found within one of these structures, the animal will be
allowed to safely escape that section prior to moving or utilizing that segment.
(g) Cover or Inspect AB Trenches or Other Potential Entrapments. All open holes, sumps, and
trenches shall be inspected at the beginning in the middle, and at the end of each day for trapped
covered species as required by Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Incidental Take
Permit Condition of Approval 7.15. All trenches, sumps, and other excavations with side walls that
have greater than 1:1 slope (45 degrees) and are between 2 and 8 feet deep will be covered when
workers or equipment are not actively working in the excavation, including overnight, or shall have
an escape ramp constructed of earth or a non -slip material with less than 1:1 slope. All excavations
with side walls greater than 1:10 slope and deeper than 8 feet shall be covered when workers or
equipment are not actively working in the exaction and at the end of each day. All excavations that
are covered long term shall be inspected at the beginning of each working day to ensure inadvertent
entrapment has not occurred. If a covered species is found to be trapped, work is to cease in the
vicinity and notification will be made immediately to the CDFW. The animal will be allowed to
escape unimpeded, or a qualified biologist will capture and relocate the animal in accordance with
CDFW direction.
(h) Protect Nesting Birds. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between February 15 and
September 15, a nesting bird survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the start of any
initial activity. If construction is postponed, additional surveys may be required. For any nests that are
identified, avoidance buffers will be established to avoid any disturbances that may affect the nesting
birds or cause nest failure. The buffer will be determined based on a qualified biologist's
determination. If the recommended buffer is less than 500 feet for raptors and less than 250 feet for
passerine birds, then a biological monitor will be present whenever construction occurs within 500
feet of a raptor nest or 250 feet of a passerine nest, unless otherwise determined unnecessary by a
qualified biologist. If the biologist detects distress or a risk of nest failure resulting from the
construction activity, the biologist may halt construction and adjust the buffer as necessary.
MM BIO -2. Other Best Management Practices. The project shall continuously comply with the best
management practices items listed below during all construction activities and operations of the project:
Findings of FM -Sanon IM Pop 16 of 72 Odotcr"15
SR 99Mmking Commemuil Center Pro,W
6AKt,
d
n
0
ORIGINAL
(a) All trash, including food items, will be disposed of in securely closed or covered containers daily.
(b) A project speed limit will be maintained at 20 miles per hour during daylight hours and 10 miles per
hour for any driving on site before sunrise or after sunset.
Sienifrcant Effect
The proposed project would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Impact BIO-3)
Description of Significant Impact
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 and MM BIO-2, the proposed project would
not conflict with any City ordinance or policies, and would comply with the MBGP and the MBHCP.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO -1 and MM
BIO -2.
Sienifrcaut Effect
The proposed project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
(Impact BIO-4)
Description of Significant Impact
The project site is entirely within the planning area for the MBHCP and is required to comply with
provisions set forth in the plan. The proposed project would indirectly affect San Joaquin kit fox because
it would eliminate suitable habitat and has the potential to cause direct impacts (e.g., mortality from heavy
construction equipment) on the species. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM
BIO-1 and MM BI0-2, the proposed development would not conflict with the MBHCP because
mitigation would require preconstruction surveys and, if necessary, avoidance relocation protocols
required by the MBHCP for the San Joaquin kit fox. Additionally, the payment of impact fees would
allow for incidental take as a result of indirect and direct project -related impacts on the species.
Therefore, by implementing mitigation described above, the proposed project would not conflict with the
MBHCP and there would be no impact.
Description of Significant Impact
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 and MM BIO-2, the proposed project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Findings of Fact — Section 15091 Page lr oM Odoatt 2015
SR 99M.Aing Commercial Center Project
dAHc,
0
ORIGING�.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findin¢
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM BI0-1 and MM
BIa2.
C. Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less- Than - Significant Level.
The project would have no environmental effects on biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a
less - than - significant level.
A Cumulative En vironmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
The proposed project in conjunction with other ongoing development in southwestern Bakersfield would
permanently remove land from the overall land balance available for listed, protected, and special - status
wildlife and vegetative communities. Proposed local projects that may have a cumulative impact include
Tract 6454 (a 17.9 -acre health club and 68 -lot residential development), Tract 6868 (a 56.33 -acre
religious facility and 156 -lot residential development), Tract 7253 (a 20.14 -acre church and 79 -lot
residential development), Tract 7231 (a 23.67 -acre California Highway Patrol facility and 59 -lot
residential development), and Tract 6802 (a 21.7 -acre automotive service station and 79 -lot residential
development). The Bakersfield area is subject to the provisions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan (MBHCP); therefore, cumulative impacts have been addressed and considered
mitigated to less- than - significant levels.
The development of the approximately 85 -acre site would have negligible, if any, adverse effects on the
diversity and abundance of native flora and fauna in the region. The site does contain suitable habitat for
San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl; however, the habitat quality for other wildlife species is low. The
project site has no potential to support a high diversity of native plants, and most of the wildlife species
that could be expected to regularly use the study area are species that are adapted to disturbance of the
type that is caused by residential and commercial development, agricultural practices, and disking found
at and near the project site. Because of the present condition of the proposed site and the surrounding
vicinity, it is not likely that development of the site would contribute significantly to cumulative adverse
impacts on regional flora and fauna
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would not have cumulative environmental effects on biological resources that would have a
significant impact on the environment.
Findings of Fact -Salim 15091 Ng is of/2 @m 2015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Cemer & jed
nA %c
O �9S
O
OR IG VJAL
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less- Than - Significant Impact on the Environment
The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5. (Impact CR -1)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can Be
Mitigated to Less- Than - Significant Levels.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Impact CR -2)
Description of Sianificant Intoner
Based on a cultural resources record search and a pedestrian survey of the project site, there is no
evidence that significant archaeological resources exist on the project site. Three isolated historic glass
items, found in 1992 on the project parcel, were not found during the more recent survey for the current
project. Isolated items, in this case described as a "small fragment of blue glass, "small aqua glass bead,"
and a `large fragment of purple glass" (Garcia 1992), are not considered significant archaeological
resources under CEQA.
Therefore, the proposed project would not affect any known archaeological resources. However, during
ground- disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, site preparation), there is the potential
to disturb previously unknown subsurface archaeological resources. Disturbance of previously unknown
archaeological resources could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource. This could result in a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure
would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels.
Finding
The project's potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused
by the project would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as
described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findi
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. The project
impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR -1 described below.
Findings of Facl —S O.n 15091 Page 19 arm October 2015
Sit 99Mosking Commercial Center Project
�A
MM CR -1. The project shall continuously comply with the best management practices items listed below
during all construction activities and operations of the project:
(a) Stop Work if Cultural Resources Are Encountered. If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or
ground stone, historic bottles or ceramics, building foundations, or non -human bone are inadvertently
discovered during ground - disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the
find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop
appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance
strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs such as
excavation or detailed documentation. Prior to recommencement of any construction activities, the
qualified archaeologist shall provide a pre- grading conference will provide procedures for
archaeological resource surveillance and appropriate treatment of cultural resources.
(b) Provide Notice if Cultural Resources Are Encountered. If buried cultural resources are discovered
that may have relevance to Native Americans, the project proponent shall provide written notice to
the City of Bakersfield, Tejon Indian Tribe, Native American Heritage Commission, and any other
appropriate individuals, agencies, and/or groups as determined by the qualified archaeologist in
consultation with the City of Bakersfield.
(c) Cultural Resources Training. Prior to ground disturbance activities associated with this project,
personnel associates with the grading effort shall be informed of the importance of the potential
cultural and archaeological resources (e.g., archaeological sites, artifacts, features, burials, human
remains) that may be encountered during site preparation activities, how to identify those resources in
the field, and of the regulatory protections afforded to those resources. This training shall be
conducted by representatives from the Tejon Indian Tribe or qualified archaeologist. The personnel
shall be informed of procedures relating to the discovery of archaeological remains during grading
activities and cautioned to avoid archaeological finds with equipment and not collect artifacts. The
applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that
they have met this requirement prior to commencement of ground disturbance activities. This
documentation should include information on the date(s) of training activities, the individual(s) that
conducted the training, a description of the training, and a list of names of those who were trained.
Should cultural remains be uncovered, the on -site supervisor shall immediately notify a qualified
archaeologist and the Tejon Indian Tribe. The developer shall provide the Tejon Indian Tribe
information on excavation depth of the construction of the site.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature. (Impact CR -3)
Description of Significant Impact
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the project site. The
project area is situated on the San Joaquin Valley floor, an area where deep deposits of alluvium are present.
Quaternary Holocene to late Pleistocene alluvium is found at or near the modem ground surface, and has a
limited potential for containing vertebrate fossils. However, in older Quaternary alluvium at depths greater
than approximately 5 feet it is possible that fossils could be present. Surface grading, or very shallow
Finding of Fact— Secdoo 15091 Page 20 of October 2015
SR 99/Hosking Commertiel Center Project
m
f)81GI0.'pj_
excavations in the younger Quaternary alluvium occurring at the surface of the project site, is unlikely to
encounter significant vertebrate fossils. However, deeper trenching or excavations that extend into older
Quaternary deposits may encounter significant vertebrate fossil remains. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce any potential impact to a less - [Ilan - significant level.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findin¢
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR -2, described below.
MM CR -2. The project shall continuously comply with the best management practices items listed
below during all construction activities and operations of the project:
(a) Stop Work if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered During Construction Activities. If
paleontological resources are encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find will halt
until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Paleontological
resource materials may include fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks that have been preserved
in rock. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially
significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to
mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. Construction shall not resume until the
appropriate mitigation measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than
significant.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. (Impact CR -4)
Description of Significant Impact
No Native American burial grounds or sacred sites have been identified in the project site. However,
unknown buried human remains could be inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, which
could result in damage to these human remains. To avoid or reduce this potential impact on human
remains to a less- than - significant level, the Mitigation Measure MM CR -3 would be implemented.
Finding
The project's potential to uncover buried human remains is considered significant; however, potential
adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with the
implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
Findings ofFecl -Swbm 15091 N,21 ofn October 2015
1R 99Moiking Commercial Center Project
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts
related to buried human remains. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a
less -than- significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR -3, described below.
MM CR -3. The project shall continuously comply with the best management practices items listed
below during all construction activities and operations of the project:
(a) Appropriate Treatment of Human Remains. If human remains of Native American origin are
discovered during project construction, State laws will be followed relating to the disposition of
Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage
Commission (California Public Resource Code § 5097). According to the California Health and
Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery Q 8100) and
disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony Q 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that
construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner
can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to
be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission.
(b) Appropriate Contact Regarding Findings of Human Remains. If any human remains are
discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there will be no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains until:
(i) The coroner of Kern County has been informed and has determined that no investigation
of the cause of death is required, and,
(ii) The descendants of the deceased Native Americans, or the Native American Heritage
Commission (if the Commission is unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to
make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission), have made a
recommendation to the landowner or person responsible for the excavation work, for means of
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in California Public Resource Code § 5097.98.
C. Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level.
The project would have no environmental effects on cultural resources that cannot be mitigated to a less -
than- significant level.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less- Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
Sienificant Effect
The project would result in a cumulatively significant impact on cultural resources.
FindiWof Fact —sx0on 15091 PW 22 of'n October 2015
SR 99alosking Commercial Cemer Project
yp
c+
ORIGINAL
Description of Significant Impact
Impacts on cultural resources are generally limited to a specific site and not deemed cumulative impacts
unless such resources are determined to be part of a rural historic landscape, are uncommon, or are a last -
of- its -kind property type in the area. Each reasonably foreseeable project would be evaluated for its
potential to affect historic or cultural resources, and would implement site - specific mitigation measures
accordingly in appropriate CEQA analyses.
Three archaeological resources have been identified within the project area; all are isolated pieces of
historic glass. No further archaeological resources were identified during the site investigation. It is
possible, although unlikely, that resources could be unearthed during project excavation activities.
Mitigation measures have been included to avoid or reduce potential project impacts on unrecorded
archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure MM CR -2), unrecorded paleontological resources
(Mitigation Measure MM CR -3), and human retrains (Mitigation Measure MM CR -4) during
construction. Similar mitigation measures are expected to be included on all future proposed projects
within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, on a project -by- project basis. Future projects in the City and
county would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances protecting
cultural resources through implementation of similar mitigation measures during concoction. Therefore,
cumulative impacts from past, present, and future projects would not be cumulatively significant and the
potential cumulative impact from the project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Finding
Impacts of the project could combine with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects,
contributing to significant cumulative impacts on cultural resources. These impacts will be reduced to a
level that is less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CR -2 through MM
CR -4.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findin
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce the impacts
caused by the project that result in a cumulative cultural resources impact. Cumulative impacts we
considered significant but would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM CR -2 through MM CR -4, described above.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would not result in any significant and unavoidable cumulative effects on cultural resources.
Findings of Fact -Sebon 15091 Page2Dofr2 October 2015
SR 99MoSking Commercial Cenar Project
?IGI V, L.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less- Than - Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Impact GEO -1)
The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable
as a result of the proposed project and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. (Impact GEO-2)
The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property. (Impact GEO -3)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
The project would not have any environmental effects on geology and soils that would have potentially
significant, but that can be mitigated to less- than - significant levels.
C. Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less- Than - Significant LeveL
The project would have no environmental effects on geology and soils that cannot be mitigated to a less -
than- significant level.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
As discussed in Section 4.5.5 of the EIR, various mechanisms are in place to reduce seismic risks at the
project level, including the project- specific hazards evaluation processes mandated by the Seismic
Hazards Mapping Act as well as the seismic design standards promulgated by the City's Building Code.
Although there would be some residual level of risk, because seismic hazards cannot be entirely avoided,
the proposed project would not contribute considerably to existing cumulative impacts related to seismic
hazards.
Potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic hazards, as well as those associated
with expansive soils, topographic alteration, and erosion, usually are site specific and generally do not
combine with similar effects occurring with other projects in the City. Implementation of the provisions
of the City Building Code, California Building Code, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit requirements, and MBGP safety policies would ensure that potential site - specific geotechnical
conditions would be addressed fully in the design of the project and that potential impacts would be
maintained at less- than - significant levels. The proposed project would not contribute to adverse soil,
geologic, or seismic cumulative impacts.
Fillings of Fact -Swum 15M Page 24 of 72 Oaober 2015
SR 9WH.Aing Commercial Cenmr P j.
q.r'r
n
ORIGINAL
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would have no cumulative effects on geology and soils that would have a significant and
unavoidable impact.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less- Than - Significant Impact on the Environment.
The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Impact GHG -2)
The proposed project would not subject property and persons to otherwise avoidable physical harm in
light of inevitable climate change. (Impact GHG -3)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less- Than - Significant Levels.
The project would have no environmental effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are potentially
significant but that can be mitigated to a less- than - significant level.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment. (Impact GHG -1)
Description of Significant Effect
Construction of the proposed project would generate emissions of CO2, CH4, and N20 from mobile and
stationary construction equipment exhaust, as well as employee vehicle and haul truck exhaust. Estimated
construction emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.6 -3. Refer to the
Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix F) for model outputs and detailed assumptions.
As shown in Table 4.6 -3 in the EIR, construction of the project would generate 3,515 metric tons of CO2e
during the construction period. This is equivalent to adding about 740 typical passenger vehicles per year
to the road during construction (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014b). Emissions would be short
term and cease once construction is complete in 2018.
Operation of the project would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions. Sources of direct emissions
would include mobile vehicle trips, natural gas combustion, and landscaping activities. Indirect emissions
would be generated by electricity generation and consumption, waste and wastewater generation, and
water use.
FM.n,.fFW— Section 15091 Page 25 of72 Woar 2015
SR 99M k,, Commercial Cenmr Project
of 5�KE9
u
ORIGiNn1
As discussed above, in order for impacts of the project to be considered less than significant in terns of
GHG, at least a 29% reduction from BAU emissions most be achieved by 2020. Estimated total emissions
(amortized construction + operational) associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.6-
4 in the EIR.
As shown in Table 4.6 -4 in the EIR, total emissions associated with the proposed project (amortized
construction + operational) are 12,229 metric tons CO2e. Consistent with SJVAPCD's GHG guidance,
emissions must be reduced by 29% over BAU to result in a less - than - significant impact on global climate
change. Achieving this target would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the state's current
climate change policy objectives outlined in AB 32,
Table 4.6 -5 in the EIR summarizes year 2011 BAU emissions associated with the proposed project. Year
2011, the year ARB last updated the AB 32 Scoping Plan, was used as a conservative emissions estimate
for BAU conditions, which does not account for emissions reductions achieved since the 2002 -2004
baseline period as allowed in the SJVAPCD CEQA Guidance. BAU emissions do not include any
project -level mitigation or the effects of furore local, state, or federal actions to reduce GHG emissions.
These actions, programs, and initiatives undertaken by the state will contribute to project -level emissions
reductions. For example, the state's RPS will reduce the carbon content of electricity through
requirements for increased renewable energy. Renewable resources, such as wind and solar power,
produce electricity, just like coal and other traditional sources, but do not emit any GHGs. By generating
a greater amount of energy through renewable resources, electricity provided to the project would be
cleaner and less GHG - intensive than if the state had not required the RPS. Other state strategies that were
considered in the emissions analysis include Pavley, LCFS, and Title 24 (refer to Section 4.6.3.2 in the
EIR for a description of these regulations).
In addition to summarizing 2011 BAU conditions, Table 4.6 -5 in the EIR also summarizes total 2020
emissions associated with the proposed project (amortized construction + operational), including the
effects of statewide actions to reduce GHG emissions and the effects of Mitigation Measures MM GHG -1
and MM GHG -2, which require electric- powered landscaping equipment, high - efficiency water fixtures,
and onsite recycling and compositing services.
As shown in Table 4.6 -5 in the EIR, combined state and project -level mitigation would reduce operational
GHG emissions by 29%, relative to BAU conditions, consistent with SJVAPCD's threshold of achieving
a 29% reduction below BAU conditions. Accordingly, construction and operation of the project would
result in a less- than - significant impact on global climate change.
Findine
The project's potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused
by the project would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as
described below.
Findings of Fad — Secfion 15091 Page 26 ofn October 2015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Cemer Project
Brief explanation of Rational for Findin
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
may have a significant impact on the environment. The project impacts are considered significant but
would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GHG -1
and MM GHG -2, described below.
MM GHG -1. Implement Onsite Mitigation to Reduce Operational Emissions. Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project proponent shall submit evidence to the City of Bakersfield Planning Division
to demonstrate adherence to the following: The project shall incorporate the following onsite mitigation
into the project design to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with project operations:
(a) Install high - efficiency lighting to reduce consumption of electricity for lighting, which reduces
emissions associated with the generation of electricity. A 75% lighting energy reduction was applied
to the proposed project based on the performance of Energy STAR�cerrified light bulbs, which
consume 70 --90% less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs;
(b) Install low -flow bathroom faucets to reduce water consumption and thereby reduce emissions
associated with the generation of power used to transport water;
(c) Install low -flow toilets to reduce water consumption and thereby reduce emissions associated with the
generation of power used to transport water;
(d) Use water - efficient irrigation systems to reduce water consumption and thereby reduce emissions
associated with the generation of power used to transport water; and
(e) Institute onsite recycling and composting services to reduce offsite, waste - related emissions
associated with the proposed project.
MM GHG -2. Reduction of Operational GHG Emissions. Prior to the issuance of final occupancy for
each phase of development, the project proponent shall submit a focused Greenhouse Gas Report that
identifies measures for the reduction by 29% of the project's "business as usual" operational carbon
dioxide equivalent emissions as quantified in this Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project.
The focused air analysis may reference combined state and project -level mitigation that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and shall be submitted to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
for review and comment regarding the methodology used to quantify the reductions. The study can be for
each individual phase of construction or for the entire project Any mitigation program for the reduction
of greenhouse gases adopted by the City of Bakersfield or the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District, which can be implemented for the specific project site and that provides equal or more effective
mitigation than this mitigation measure, can be utilized as a replacement for the requirements of this
mitigation measure.
C Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less -Than - Significant Levee
The project would have no environmental effects on GHG emissions that cannot be mitigated to a less -
than- significant level.
Findings of Feet— Senion 15091 rage 27 of 72 October 2015
SR 99Mosking Commemial Center &o)ect
c
�> is
ORiGiNA1
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
In accordance with scientific consensus regarding the cumulative nature of GHGs, the GHG analysis
provides a cumulative evaluation of GHG emissions. Unlike traditional cumulative impact assessments,
the analysis is still project- specific in that it only evaluates direct emissions generated by the project;
given the global nature of climate change, the analysis does not include emissions from past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects in the Project Area.
As discussed in Section 4.6.4.2 of the EIP, GHG impacts are inherently cumulative. Accordingly, because
implementation of the project would not exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's
GHG threshold, it would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on GHGs or climate change.
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
There would be no cumulative effects related to GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on
the environment.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less- Than - Significant Impact on the Environment.
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Impact HAZ -1)
The proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. (Impact HAZ-3)
The proposed project would be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. (Impact HAZ -4)
The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Impact HAZ-S)
Findings of F=-S on 15091 PapnoM 0c 1sr2015
SR 99lnosking Comore W Cella Project
9 �
m
p
,ORIGF'tA�.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Sianificant Effect
The proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. (Impact HAZ-2)
Description of Sianificant Impact
Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. As mentioned under Impact HAZ -1, construction - related
hazardous materials would be used during construction of the proposed project, including fuel, solvents,
paints, oils, grease, and caulking. It is possible that any of these substances could be released during
construction activities. However, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, along with
construction BMPs implemented through a project - specific SWPPP, would ensure that all hazardous
materials are used, stored, and disposed of properly, which would minimize potential impacts related to a
hazardous materials release during the construction phase of the project.
As described in Section 4.7.2 of the EIR, Environmental Setting, four sites near the proposed project site
were identified during the environmental database review as warranting further analysis to determine if
they could potentially affect the proposed project. They are Elementary School No. 12, Kem Valley
Packing Company, Elementary School No. 11, and the proposed McKee Road School. As mentioned, two
of the three school sites (Elementary School No. 12 and Elementary School No. 11) were part of a PEA
and a supplemental site investigation. No contaminants were identified in either case. The third school
site (McKee Road School) also underwent a PEA and arsenic, chlordane, DDD, DDE, and DDT were
confirmed to be on site (soil impact only). The site was remediated and was granted closure in August of
2010. The remaining site (Kem Valley Pecking Company) was a Leaking Underground Storage Tank site
that was identified as having hydrocarbon- affected soil. Remediation was performed and the site received
closure in 1990. In 2010, a small spill of mineral oil occurred to onsite soil at Kem Valley Packing
Company, caused by vandalism of an onsite transformer. Containment and cleanup of the spill were
performed with no further impact on the project site. As such, the aforementioned offsite properties are
unlikely to have had a deleterious effect on the project area
Historical land use at the project site has included agricultural activities. As such, it is possible that
residual traces of pesticides and herbicides may be present on the site. Construction and operation
activities conducted during implementation of the project may generate dust and expose construction
personnel to such chemicals. Additionally, discolored soil was observed in the vicinity of the rusted
empty, 5- gallon containers in the drainage basin, suggesting that there may be potential for soil affected
by illegal dumping activities. Furthermore, two dwelling -sized structures were located on site as early as
1912, and a third structure was on site as early as 1978. As such, there is potential that these structures
may have contained asbestos and/or lead -based paint that could have affected nearby soils at the time of
demolition activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ -1 through HAZ -2
Findings of Fact - Satter 15091 Page 29 of 72 Qtober3015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Center Project
�6� F
v
ORIC11rJA1
described below would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. The aforementioned mitigation
measure was based on the recommendations included in the Phase I ESA.
As described previously, the proposed project might account for an increase in amounts of common types
of hazardous materials. These hazardous material products are generally used in small amounts, and any
spills that may occur are limited in scope and spill area and would be cleaned up soon after they occur, as
required by CUPA regulations. Moreover, the existing HMBP for the proposed project would be
modified, if necessary, to include a description of any new hazardous materials that might be used during
future operations and would be subject to approval and oversight by the Bakersfield Fire Department.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less - than - significant impact related to
hazards to the public or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials.
Finding
The project's potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be
reduced to a less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a
less - than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ -1 and MM HA-Z-2,
described below.
MM HAZI. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide retain a
qualified environmental consulting firn to prepare a Phase II Enviromnental Site Assessment to
evaluate the topics listed below. Any remediation activities identified by the study shall be conducted
under the oversight of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division,
which serves as the local Certified Unified Program Agency. A copy of the final report, as well as
evidence to demonstrate compliance with any remediation measures, shall be provided to the City of
Bakersfield Planning Division prior to the issuance of the fast grading and/or building permits.
Project construction activities (unrelated to remediation activities) and site occupancy will not be
permitted if it is determined the site is contaminated until the Environmental Services Division
determines the site has been safely remediated and is suitable for construction and operation activities
to commence.
(a) Soil Sampling in Area with Discolored Soils. The study shall collect soil samples in the vicinity
of potentially affected soil (discolored soil near the drainage basin at the south- central portion of
the site) and analyze the samples to evaluate if illegal dumping activities have affected soils in the
area. If hazardous materials are discovered in the soils, the study shall provide recommendations
Findings Of Fact — Section 15091 Pegg 30 of 72 Ocmb 2015
SR 99Moeking Commercial Center Project
�c
on the steps required for proper treatment and/or removal and disposal of contaminated soil to the
satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental Services Division.
(b) Soil Sampling for Lead and Asbestos. The study shall collect soil samples near the foundation
(in the southern portion of the site) and analyze them for lead and asbestos to evaluate if
demolition activities have potentially affected the soils in the area. Concurrent with sample
collection mentioned above, soil samples shall also be collected in the vicinity of the former
dwelling -sized structures near the northeastem comer and the east - central portion of the site and
analyzed for lead and asbestos to evaluate if demolition activities have potentially affected the
soils in the area. If hazardous materials are discovered in the sampled soils, the study shall
provide recommendations on the steps required for proper treatment and/or removal and disposal
of contaminated soil to the satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental
Services Division.
(c) Soil Sampling for Agricultural Pesticides. The study shall collect soil samples across the site
and analyze them for organochlorine pesticides, arsenic, and lead. If hazardous materials are
discovered in the soils, the qualified hazardous materials professional shall provide
recommendations on the steps required for proper treatment and/or removal and disposal of
contaminated soil to the satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department Environmental
Services Division.
MM HAZ-2. The project shall continuously comply with the following best management practices
during all construction activities and operations of the project
(a) Discovery of Asbestos. In the event that suspect asbestos- containing materials are uncovered
during project construction, work at the project sites shall immediately halt and a qualified
hazardous materials professional shall be contacted and brought to the project sites to make a
proper assessment of the suspect materials. All potentially friable asbestos - containing materials
shall be removed in accordance with federal, State, and local laws and the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines prior to ground disturbance that may disturb
such materials.
(b) Discovery of Oil Wells. In the event that abandoned or unrecorded wells or above -ground fuel
storage tanks are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall
cease in the vicinity of the well or above- ground fuel storage tanks, and the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, shall be contacted
for requirements and approval; copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of
Bakersfield. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources, may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required.
C Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level.
The project would have no environmental effects related to hazards and hazardous materials that cannot
be mitigated to a less - [Ilan- significant level.
Findings of Fact —Smfim 15091 NP31 ofn October 2015
SR 99Mmking Conunon,W Center Roject
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
Cumulative projects with the potential to have a deleterious effect on the proposed project are sites that
are nearest the project footprint. A review of the cumulative project list identified one site within 0.25
mile of the proposed project, as shown in Table 3-4 in the EIR.
Similar to those during implementation of the proposed project, activities related to the development of
the religious facility mentioned above would likely involve the routine transport, disposal, and handling
of typical hazardous materials and intermittent use and transport of petroleum -based lubricants, solvents,
and fuels during the construction phase. It is expected that the project would involve some routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials typical with construction as well. However, the routine
transport, disposal, and handling of these types of hazardous materials would all be conducted in
accordance with existing hazardous waste laws and would not contribute to a cumulative hazards and
hazardous materials impact. Additionally, hazardous materials transport, disposal, and handling are not
expected to be part of typical operational activities at religious facilities or the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and would not have the potential to contribute to
hazards associated with cumulative projects.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would have no cumulative effects related to hazards and hazardous materials that would have
a significant impact.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less - Than - Significant Impact on the Environment.
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite. (Impact WQ-3)
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite. (Impact WQ-4)
The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. (Impact WQ-5)
The proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Impact WQ -6)
Findingeaf Fact - Section I 1 rage 32 ofn October2015
SR 9Wlwking C...W Center Project
N �,,,
r
p O
CRIGIN✓-
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. (Impact WQ-7)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (Impact
WQ-1)
Descrimion of Significant Ira
The proposed project could potentially violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
The project site encompasses approximately 85 acres, and the project could discharge new urban
pollutants from the site.
During construction, the project could result in an increase in surface water pollutants such as sediment,
oil and grease, and miscellaneous wastes from construction activities. Water quality would be temporarily
affected if disturbed sediments were discharged via existing stormwater collection systems. Increased
turbidity resulting from construction- related sediment discharge can introduce compounds toxic to aquatic
organisms, increase water temperature, and stimulate the growth of algae.
The delivery, handling, and storage of construction materials and wastes, along with use of construction
equipment, could also introduce the risk of stormwater contamination. Staging areas or building sites can
be sources of pollution because of the use of paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals during
construction. Impacts associated with metals in stormwater include toxicity to aquatic organisms, such as
bioaccumulation, and the potential contamination of drinking supplies. Pesticide use (including herbicides
and fungicides) associated with site preparation work (as opposed to pesticide used for landscaping) is
another potential source of stormwater contamination during construction. Pesticide impacts on water
quality include toxicity to aquatic species and biwiccumulation in larger species. Larger pollutants, such
as trash, debris, and organic matter, are additional pollutants that could be associated with construction
activities. Impacts include health hazards and aquatic ecosystem damage associated with bacteria, viruses,
and vectors and physical changes to the aquatic ecosystem. Without BMPs installed and/or followed,
construction impacts on water quality would be potentially significant and could lead to exceedance of
water quality objectives or criteria.
Construction at the project site would disturb more than I acre. Therefore, the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP would be required, in accordance with the General Construction Permit. The
SWPPP would list BMPs that would be implemented to protect stormwater runoff and include monitoring
of BMP effectiveness. At a minimum, BMPs would include practices to minimize the contact of
construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents,
adhesives) with stormwater. The SWPPP would specify properly designed, centralized storage areas that
keep these materials out of the rain. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary
BMPs selected would focus on erosion control (i.e., keeping sediment on the site).
Fmdingeof Feel— Sm.15091 NpMoM October 3015
SR 99/Hoskin, Commercial Cmter Project
The SWPPP would specify BMPs to ensure that water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
are not violated. BMPs selected would be designed to comply with the requirements of the Central Valley
RWQCB and would be subject to review and approval by the City. BMPs during construction may
include but not be limited to the following:
• Silt fence
• Fiber roll
• Street sweeping and vacuuming
• Stockpile management
• Vehicle and equipment maintenance
• Erosion control mats and spray -on applications
• Desilting basin
• Gravel bag berm
• Sandbag barrier
• Spill prevention and control
• Concrete waste management
• Water conservation practices
Such measures are routinely developed for construction sites and are proven to be effective in reducing
pollutant discharges from construction activities. Implementation of the SWPPP during construction
would ensure water quality objectives, standards, and wastewater discharge thresholds would not be
violated. The SWPPP would be prepared by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to
commencement of construction activities. As selection of the appropriate BMPs is a standard process of
the engineering review and grading plan approval, impacts from construction on water quality would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required for construction impacts.
Operations of the project would create concentrated mixed -use commercial and high- density residential
centers surrounded by medium- density residential uses on previously undeveloped, pervious surfaces.
This would significantly alter the land use at the site. Site runoff likely would be typical of other urban
areas and contain pollutants such as household chemicals, landscaping fertilizers, trash, heavy metals, and
other substances. Furthermore, site operations would introduce more vehicles to the site, which could
increase the potential for vehicle -related pollutants to build up on impervious surfaces and discharge in
runoff when the wet season begins. Periodic use of pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides) for
landscaping could introduce additional pollutants.
Findings of Fact —Swfim 15091 Ng M of 72 Om 2015
SR 99MOA1fla Commercial Caaer Project
CRIG; ,[
New storm drains constructed for the project likely would be discharged to an onsite detention and
infiltration facility. With compliance with the Kern County MS4 Permit, as well as with City and Kern
County stormwater requirements, good housekeeping and stormwater management and treatment design
BMPs would be implemented during operation, and the use of vegetation and other landscaped areas
would assist in reducing the potential for pollutants to be discharged to onsite storm drains. The proposed
project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the
project's operational impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure
MM WQ-1.
Finding
The project's potential to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements is
considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a
less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project impacts are
considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM WQ-1, described below.
MM WQ-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence to
the City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
Stormwater Management and Design. The project proponent shall coordinate with the City of
Bakersfield Public Works Department to design the project to ensure that all project runoff can be
accommodated by the receiving stormwater system. Design elements shall include, if needed, onsite
stormwater management measures, such as onsite detention or selected upgrades to the receiving
system. Onsite stormwater management facilities shall he designed and constructed to capture runoff
and provide treatment before discharge of pollutant- generating surfaces, including parking areas and
buildings and in compliance with City of Bakersfield design standards.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). (Impact WQ-2)
Description of Significant Impact
The depth to shallow groundwater within the project site is at least 43 feet below ground surface.
Excavation for the project would be required for installation of utilities, building foundation, and other
infrastructure. However, these features would not require deep excavation; therefore, potential
groundwater dewatering during construction would be unlikely to occur. If dewatering is necessary, it
FiMtnp of Fact —Serum 15091 Fagea5ofr2 Ombx2015
SR "MO in Commercial Center Hojm
rj
ORIGItJAL.
would be conducted according to the proper regulations and permit requirements from the City, Kern
County, and/or Central Valley RWQCB.
In addition, potential use of groundwater during construction for dust control, concrete pouring, and other
activities would be minimal and temporary, and therefore would not result in groundwater depletion.
As a result, there would be no impact on groundwater resources from construction dewatering or use, and
impacts on groundwater supplies during construction would be less than significant.
Groundwater recharge may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would add
approximately 800,000 square feet of leasable commercial space and associated parking lots and internal
drives on approximately 85 acres, which could potentially interfere with groundwater recharge by
decreasing the amount of pervious surfaces on the site. The site would be converted from 100% pervious
to approximately 78.5% impervious.
Existing Kem County stormwater regulations require that new developments in the Bakersfield
metropolitan area that cannot be served by the existing MS4 include retention basins to contain and
infiltrate runoff from the development. If new developments can be served by the existing MS4 retention
basins, then storm water would be discharged through the existing MS4 retention basins. Retentions
ponds are designed to be separate from local groundwater supplies to prevent movement of dissolved
pollutants from surface water to groundwater sources.
The project would not be served by MS4 retention basins, and therefore runoff from the site would be
infiltrated and the project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The proposed
project would treat onsite stormwater runoff in an onsite infiltration basin, which would help recharge the
underlying groundwater aquifer. Low - impact development stormwater treatment methods for water
quality would also be required to ensure infiltrated groundwater would not cause underlying groundwater
to exceed water quality objectives or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Groundwater aquifer supplies may be affected by operation of the proposed project and the project may
be subject to future requirements that come from any adopted groundwater susminability plan from the
locally established GSA pursuant to the SOMA. GCWD would use pumped groundwater to meet the
project's water demands. According to the Draft Project WSA, the project groundwater demand is
anticipated to be 376.4 acre -feet per year, or approximately 12.6% of the anticipated total system demand
of 3,346 acre -feet per year in 2015 (including the proposed project). Project demands would be met
through GCWD's existing groundwater rights from native aquifer supplies, as well Mr. John Giumara's
overlying groundwater rights for the same aquifer that will be pumped from GCWD wells (Page 1 of
Appendix D). An Agreement for Overlying Lands would be executed, in which GCWD acts as an agent,
to allow GCWD to utilize Mr. Giumarra's Overlying Groundwater Rights m a landowner, and which
would then require new wells to be drilled. District demands would also continue be met with pumping
native groundwater, which GCWD has been using to serve its existing customers based on existing
groundwater rights. To ensure water supply reliability during single dry year or multiple dry years,
GCWD will use its storage reserve of canal seepage water from KDWD. As part of an Urban Customer
Service Agreement, GCWD receives 100% of the surface water seepage losses from the Kern Island
Canal system as groundwater recharge and to maintain groundwater aquifer levels. This water would be
used only during times of water shortages (Appendix D).
Finding ofFwt -Swoon 15091 Page 36 of 72 October 2015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Center O jM
J
C��Q�i taw
Although there would be sufficient water supplies for the project and the GC WD service area as indicated
by the WSA (Appendix D), given the current drought conditions and the reasonably foreseeable
continued stress on available water, the project would implement Mitigation Measure MM WQ -2 (a),
Water - Efficient Design Measures, which would help reduce the total water demand identified in the
WSA. Should LAFCO deny the annexation into GCWD's service area, however, an alternative water
supply sufficient for the life of the project must be identified and secured for the project, and would
require approval from the alternative water supplier and the City, as required by MM WQ -3. Other
options may include connecting with City lines on the west side of SR -99 or to California Water Service
Company (Cal Water) to the north, which in the case of Cal Water would also require a service area
expansion.
Therefore, with construction and operation of an infiltration basin for recharge, installation of water -
efficient infrastructure, and an agreement with KDWD for additional water supplies, groundwater
depletion would be avoided, and impacts on groundwater recharge and supplies would be less than
significant after MM WQ-2 is incorporated.
Finding
The project's potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge is considered significant however, potential adverse effects caused by the project
would be reduced to a less - than- significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described
below.
Brief Exclamation of the Rationale for the Findin
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project impacts are
considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM WQ-2 and MM WQ-3, as described below.
MM WQ-2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence to the
City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate that the project has been designed in compliance
with the following:
(a) Water - Efficient Fixtures (Outdoor). The project shall use water - efficient fixtures and recirculated
or recycled water (where available) and water- efficient irrigation systems with rain detection/soii
moisture - sensing devices. Water features such as outdoor fountains, if used, shall be designed to
minimize water loss from overspill, evaporation, and percolation and shall be recirculated.
(b) Water - Efficient Fixtures (Indoor). The project shall use water - efficient fixtures including
showerheads with 1.5 gallons per minute or better, toilets with 1.28 gallons per flush or better, urinals
with 0.5 gallon per flush or better, and lavatory faucets with 0.8 gallon per minute or better. Toilets
should also use dual -flush. No single -pass cooling systems shall be installed. Additionally, the project
proponent shall incorporate the use of water recycling or reuse measures (gay water and process
Findings of Fact — Section 15091 Fage 37 ofn October 2015
SR 9Wnosking Commercial Censer F jw
o� i fil
L1F21G:f4AL
recycling systems) in suitable indoor applications wherever feasible. Feasibility that relies on cost
shall be demonstrated with a complete budget to be considered a cause for infeasibility.
(c) Drought - Tolerant Landscaping. All landscaping shall be drought - tolerant (i.e., low -water demand)
and native/adapted/non- invasive plant species in accordance with the appropriate climate zone such
as described in the New Sunset Western Garden Book, and shall be subject to approval by the City of
Bakersfield.
WQ-3. Water Supply Alternatives. Prior to issuance of grading/building permits, the project proponent
will (1) achieve annexation of the remaining portion of the site to the Greenfield County Water District;
and (2) surrender Overlying Groundwater Rights as a part of the annexation process. If annexation cannot
be achieved, the project proponent shall demonstrate an alternative supply of water sufficient to serve the
life of project, with the alternative means to be approved by the City of Bakersfield and the water
supplier.
G Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less- Than - Significant Level
The project would have no environmental effects on hydrology and water quality that cannot be mitigated
to a less - than - significant level.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Signifrcant Impact on the Environment
Development of the proposed project and other development within Bakersfield would potentially
degrade stormwater quality by contributing pollutants during construction and operation. Stotmwater
quality varies according to surrounding land uses, impervious surface area, and topography, as well as the
intensity and frequency of rainfall or irrigation. Runoff can contain grease, oil, and metals accumulated in
streets and driveways, as well as sediment and other particulates, animal waste, pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizer, and trash.
Cumulative development could affect water quality if the land use change, the intensity of land use
changes, and/or drainage is altered such that the introduction of pollutants to surface water or
groundwater is facilitated. Land use changes would potentially alter the type and concentration of
pollutants in stormwater runoff, and increased intensity of land use would potentially increase pollutant
concentrations. The most common sources of stormwater pollutants in urban areas are from construction
sites, streets, parking lots, large landscaped areas, and household and industrial materials dumped into
storm drains.
The combined effects on water quality from the proposed project and other projects in Bakersfield could
result in a cumulatively significant impact However, new projects within the City are subject to the
requirements of the Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, the Construction
General Permit, and the City's municipal codes as they relate to water quality; these regulatory
requirements have been designed to be protective of water quality. Additionally, development projects
would be subject to an environmental review process, which would identify potential site - and/or project -
specific water quality impacts and mitigate for any potential significant impacts. Therefore, there would
Finding of Fact — Section 15091 Peg 38 of 72 October 2015
SR 99Moskin8 Commercial Center r ject
n
v
(,RI jIIJAL
be a less- than - significant cumulative impact on water quality as a result of proposed project
implementation.
Development of the proposed project and other development within Bakersfield would potentially
decrease recharge to groundwater aquifers and cause overdraft in aquifers from insufficient supply.
However, most of the surrounding area is developed and therefore cumulative projects are likely
redevelopment or infill projects in urbanized areas where recharge does not occur. Cumulative
development would not be expected to substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces, so
groundwater recharge potential from percolating rainfall would not be adversely affected, and indirect
lowering of the local groundwater table is not likely to occur.
Cumulative projects within the Greenfield County Water District service area would result in greater
demand for groundwater. Any project that would be subject to Senate Bill (SB) 610 would be required to
complete a Water Supply Assessment to determine if there is sufficient water supply for the next 20 years.
Any water demand for cumulative projects not subject to SB 610 is assumed not to be cumulatively
considerable and is part of the smaller water demands associated with regional water planning. Therefore,
with implementation of SB 610, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative groundwater overdraft
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and there would be a less -than- significant cumulative
impact.
H Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Infant on the Environment.
The project would have no cumulative effects on hydrology and water quality that would have a
significant impact.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less-Than-Significant Impact on the Environment
The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. (Impact LUP-1)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less - Titan- Significant Levels.
Sian cant Effect
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. (Impact LUP -2)
Fillings of Fact -Socum 15091 Page 39of12 (.Ioor 2015
SR 99niosking Commercial Cw Project
Description of Shmificant Effect
As discussed in Section 4.3 of the FIR, the project site would be within the MBHCP and the proposed
project would be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the MBHCP. Payment of development
impact fees would reduce impacts on species covered under the MBHCP, as detailed in Section 4.3,
Biological Resouucm, Mitigation Measures MM BI41 and MM BIO-2 of the EIR. Therefore, there
would be a less- than - significant impact.
Findin
The project's potential to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the
project would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as
described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findin
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The
project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BI41 and MM BIO -2, as described below.
MM BIO-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence to the
City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
(a) Pay Development Impact Fees Pursuant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan. The project proponent shall pay fees pursuant to the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit, which includes coverage
for the San Joaquin kit fox. The payment of development impact fees is considered adequate
mitigation under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take
Permit to minimize impacts on special -status species. The fees are placed in an account for
habitat acquisition and management to be used by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan Trust Group. Upon the payment of this fee as specified by the City of
Bakersfield, the project applicant will become a sub - permittee and will be allowed the
incidental take of the species in accordance with state and federal endangered species laws
and mitigation requirements of all parties, including state, federal, and local (City of
Bakersfield and Kem County 2014, Incidental Take Permit No. 2081 - 2013- 058 -04)
(b) Conduct Preconstruction Clearance Survey. A biological clearance survey is required for
San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl. The survey shall be completed according to the
requirements of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take
Permit. All surveys must be delivered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the City of Bakersfield.
If the survey results find a covered species on the project site, a written Notice of Grading is
required at least 5 business days prior to any ground disturbance activities (excluding
FindingsofFS —a on 15091 Pogo Qofr2 Ocmber 2015
SR 99MoskiM Commemial Cmwr Rojas
6PhT
U
weekends and holidays). The Notice of Grading shall only be submitted after all required
minimization measures, according to the Incidental Take Permit, are implemented.
(c) San Joaquin Kit Fox Avoidance and Den Excavation. If known, active, or natal San
Joaquin kit fox dens are identified during the survey, minimization measures identified in the
Incidental Take Permit for den avoidance must be demonstrated (Metropolitan Bakersfield
Habitat Conservation Plan Incidental Take Permit Condition of Approval 7.5). If dens cannot
be avoided, appropriate monitoring and den excavation as described in Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Incidental Take Permit Condition 7.6 will be adhered
to.
(d) Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Avoidance and Passive Relocation. A focused
survey following the protocol described in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mifgation (CDFG 2012) will be conducted prior to the start
of construction. If burrowing owls are identified on the project site, occupied burrows shall
not be disturbed during the nesting season (February I through August 31 for owls and other
raptors). The non - disturbance buffer shall include a minimum 250 -foot buffer zone around
any occupied borrow unless a qualified biologist approved by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife verifies through non - invasive methods that either (1) borrowing owls have
not begun egg laying and incubation, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging
independently and are capable of independent survival. The sizes of individual buffers may
be modified through coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife based
on site - specific conditions and existing disturbance levels. During the non - nesting season or
if the qualified biologist determines either (1) or (2) above, the project applicant will
coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to construct artificial burrows
and passively relocate the owl(s). Passive relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move
from occupied burrows to alternate natural or artificial borrows that are beyond 50 meters
(approximately 160 feet) from the impact zone and that are within or contiguous to a
minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls (California
Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). Regarding passive relocation, the Burrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Borrowing Owl Consortium 1993) state that:
"Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 50 in
(approx. 160 feet) buffer zone by installing one -way doors in burrow, entrances. One -way
doors should be left in place 48 hours to insure owls have left the burrow, before excavation.
One alternate natural or artificial burrow should be provided for each burrow that will be
excavated in the project impact zone. The project area should be monitored daily for one
week to confirm owl use of alternate burrows before excavating burrows in the immediate
impact zone. Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled
to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe or burlap bags should be inserted
into the tunnels."
(e) Conduct "Tailgate" Environmental Education for All Construction Personnel. Prior to
initial groundbreaking, a tailgate session shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to
educate construction personnel on relevant federal, state, and local laws related to potentially
occurring special -status species at the site. The tailgate session shall include training on
RMings of Fact — Section 15091 Page dl ofn 0c 1 2015
SR 99ffl king Commercial Censer Rojas
o u
OR.IG'fdF,l
identification of species that may be found on the project site, the status of those species, and
any legal protection afforded to those species. Measures that are being implemented to
protect those species will also be explained. Personnel will be advised to report any special-
status species or burrows promptly. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared
for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter the project site.
(f) Cap and Inspections of Materials and Equipment. Material and equipment inspections
shall be conducted according to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
Incidental Take Permit. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a
diameter 4 inches or greater shall be properly capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin
kit fox or other species. Any of these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not
capped shall be inspected prior to being moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San
Joaquin kit fox or other species are not present within the structure. If a covered species is
found within one of these structures, the animal will be allowed to safely escape that section
prior to moving or utilizing that segment.
(g) Cover or Inspect All Trenches or Other Potential Entrapments. All open holes, sumps,
and trenches shall be inspected at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of each day for
trapped covered species as required by Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
Incidental Take Permit Condition of Approval 7.15. All trenches, sumps, and other
excavations with side walls that have greater than 1:1 slope (45 degrees) and are between 2
and 8 feet deep will be covered when workers or equipment are not actively working in the
excavation, including overnight, or shall have an escape ramp constructed of earth or a non-
slip material with less than 1:1 slope. All excavations with side walls greater than 1:10 slope
and deeper than 8 feet shall be covered when workers or equipment are not actively working
in the exaction and at the end of each day. All excavations that are covered long term shall be
inspected at the beginning of each working day to ensure inadvertent entrapment has not
occurred. If a covered species is found to be trapped, work is to cease in the vicinity and
notification will be made immediately to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
animal will be allowed to escape unimpeded, or a qualified biologist will capture and relocate
the animal in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife direction.
(h) Protect Nesting Birds. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between February 15
and September 15, a nesting bird survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the
start of any initial activity. If construction is postponed, additional surveys may be required.
For any nests that are identified, avoidance buffers will be established to avoid any
disturbances that may affect the nesting birds or cause nest failure. The buffer will be
determined based on a qualified biologist's determination. If the recommended buffer is less
than 500 feet for raptors and less than 250 feet for passerine birds, then a biological monitor
will be present whenever construction occurs within 500 feet of a raptor nest or 250 feet of a
passerine nest, unless otherwise determined unnecessary by a qualified biologist. If the
biologist detects distress or a risk of nest failure resulting from the construction activity, the
biologist may halt construction and adjust the buffer as necessary.
MM BIO-2. Other Beat Management Practices. The project shall continuously comply with the best
management practices items listed below during all construction activities and operations of the project:
Findings of Faa— Section 15091 Page 42 of 72 October 2015
SR 99/11osking Commercial Center Project
gHKc
O
o
ORIGINAL
(a) All trash, including food items, will be disposed of in securely closed or covered containers
daily.
(b) A project speed limit will be maintained at 20 miles per hour during daylight hours and 10
miles per hour for any driving on site before sunrise or after sunset.
C. Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level
The project would have no environmental effects on land use and planning that cannot be mitigated to a
less- than - significant level.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
Sienifcant Effect
The project would result in cumulatively significant land use and planning impacts
Description of Significant Impact
Cumulative land use and planning impacts would occur if the proposed project contributed cumulatively
through inconsistency or incompatibility with land use plans and programs or a habitat conservation plan
or a natural communities conservation plan within the general vicinity of the project. The Metropolitan
Bakersfield area currently has several established plans for growth and development within the next
decades. The MBGP Land Use Element establishes the projected growth for the City as well as land use
designations for the entire MBGP area.
Development projects proposed in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area consist of a number of planned or
approved projects that include commercial, multi - family residential, and industrial development as well as
transportation - related development. Major planned projects new the proposed project include a 120,g70-
square-foot neighborhood shopping center north of the project site at 1601 Panama Lane and the
Interchange Project at the southwestern corner of the proposed project site.
The proposed project impacts would not cumulatively contribute to land use impacts in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area, as each project is required to be consistent with the City's established general plan
goals, policies, and implementation measures. Impacts associated with the proposed project would be
generally consistent with the policies and guidelines in local land use plans would be mitigated to less -
than- significant levels. Likewise, proposed cumulative projects must be consistent with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield planning goals and policies and must be reviewed and approved by the City and County prior
to implementation. Therefore, land use and planning impacts from the proposed project would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Fumli,a of FUR —aUtion 15091 Page 43 of 72 October 2015
SR Wffloaking Commercial Cemer Project
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would have no cumulative effects on land use and planning that would have a significant
impact.
NOISE
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less -Than- Significant Impact on the Environment
The proposed project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels. (Impact N0I -2)
The proposed project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Impact N0I -3)
The proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Impact N0I -4)
The proposed project would not be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Impact N0I -5)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project that Are Potentially Significant, but that Can Be
Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Shu ifcant Effect
The proposed project would expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established
in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Impact NOI -1)
Description of Significant Impact
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. First,
temporary increases in traffic noise levels could occur as a result of construction crews and equipment
entering and exiting the project site, and would most likely take place during the morning and evening
hours of commute. Such noise increases would be transient in nature and the effect on longer -term
ambient noise levels (such as the daily CNEL) would be small. Therefore, short-term construction - related
impacts associated with commuting workers and transportation of equipment to the project site would be
less than significant.
The second type of short-term noise impact would be related to noise generated during project
construction. Estimated noise levels generated by construction activities are discussed under Impact N01-
3, below. There are no specific noise level limits identified by the City of Bakersfield municipal code for
Findings of Fact —s oa 15091 ftr"of72 O No 2015
SR 9951osking Commercial Center Project
construction activities. However, the municipal code does place strict limits on the days and times during
which construction activity is permitted, and construction activity outside of these hours would be
considered a significant impact Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM NOI -1 is provided to ensure
compliance with the municipal code and to reduce the potential impact to less- than - significant levels.
Future traffic noise levels from roadways near the project site were calculated using the FHWA Highway
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77 -108). The model is based upon reference energy
emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks (two axles), and heavy trucks (three or more axles), with
consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the
acoustical characteristics of the site. Traffic data for local streets were obtained from the traffic study
provided by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers (Appendix K). Traffic data for SR 99 were obtained
from Caltrans. The day /evening/night distribution of traffic and the percentages of trucks on the roadways
used for modeling were obtained from similar studies conducted in the area by Brown -Buntin Associates.
Noise attenuation provided by existing noise barriers along the analyzed roadways were taken into
consideration. For a typical 6- foot -tall wall along most roads, the reduction is about 5 dB.
Using the FHWA model, traffic noise levels both with and without the project were determined for 2017
(Phase 1) and 2020 (Phase II) traffic conditions. For local streets, the noise level was predicted at a typical
residential setback (assumed to be 75 feet from the center of the roadway). For SR 99, the noise level was
predicted at a setback of 150 feet from the center of the roadway. Table 4.10 -6 shows the 2017 traffic
noise levels and Table 4.10 -7 shows the 2020 traffic noise levels. The tables include the predicted
changes in noise level that are attributable to the project; however, it is noted that the potential impact of
these increases is assessed under the threshold for Impact NOI -3, below.
Under 2017 conditions, the project would trigger an exceedance of the City's exterior noise standard of
65 dB CNEL at one location. This location is adjacent to Taft Highway (SR 119) between Wible Road
and South H Street, where the noise level would increase from 65.0 to 65.1 dB CNEL. Because the
existing ambient level is between 60 and 65 dB CNEL, the increase must be 3 dB or more to trigger a
significant impact. An increase of 0.1 dB CNEL would not be perceptible and is therefore considered less
than significant.
Under 2020 conditions, the project would trigger an exceedance of the City's exterior noise standard of
65 dB CNEL at one location. This location is adjacent to Panama Road between Chevalier Road and
Cottonwood Road, where the noise level would increase from 64.9 to 65.2 dB CNEL. Because the
existing ambient level is between 60 and 65 dB CNEL, the increase must be 3 dB or more to trigger a
significant impact. An increase of 0.3 dB CNEL would not be perceptible and is therefore considered less
than significant.
It is noted that there are a number of other roadway segments with predicted noise levels in excess of 65
dB CNEL under 2017 and/or 2020 conditions. However, the impacts at these locations are considered to
be less than significant because the noise levels would exceed 65 dB CNEL with or without the project
and are, therefore, not project- generated.
Under 2017 conditions, the project would not trigger any exceedance of the 70 dB CNEL limit.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Findings of Fam —S V. 15091 Page 45 of TS Omotar 2015
SR 99MOaking Commercial CmW Pmject
� m
OR.IGIrdAL
Under 2020 conditions, the project would trigger an exceedance of the 70 dB CNEL limit at one location.
This location is adjacent to Panama Lane between Akers Road and Wible Road, where the noise level
would increase from 69.8 to 70.1 dB CNEL. Because the existing ambient level is greater than 65 dB
CNEL, the increase most be 1.5 dB or more to trigger a significant impact. An increase of 0.3 dB CNEL
would not be perceptible and is therefore considered less than significant.
It is noted that there is one other roadway segment (Panama Lane between Wible Road and SR 99) with
predicted noise levels in excess of 70 dB CNEL under 2020 conditions. However, the noise impacts
adjacent to the roadway are considered to be less than significant because the noise levels would occur
with or without the project and are, therefore, not project - generated.
The hypothetical alternatives for mitigating traffic noise at existing offsite residential locations are
construction of sound walls/barriers, relocation or demolition of adversely affected residences, and sound
insulation of residences. Where walls/barriers are feasible, they are usually the most practical and cost -
effective way to reduce traffic noise impacts.
The majority of the homes along the potentially affected roadways described above front the roadway. It
would therefore not be possible to construct contiguous noise walls, as they would eliminate access to the
individual homes. Additionally, because walls would have to be constructed on private property,
individual agreements for the construction would have to be negotiated with each property owner. If an
agreement could not be reached with one or more property owner, the resulting gaps in the wall would
compromise its effectiveness. Demolition and sound insulation are usually not considered to be feasible
or desirable alternatives. Therefore, it does not appear that there are any feasible measures to further
reduce offsite traffic noise impacts along the above-described roadways.
The proposed commercial development includes two proposed hotels to be located in the northeastern
comer of the project site. Transient lodging (hotels and motels) are considered to be a noise - sensitive land
use as described by the City's Noise Element and, as such, would be subject to the exterior noise level
standards of 65 dB CNEL. Worst -case traffic noise levels at the hotels would be expected to occur in the
future as a result of long -term growth in traffic. Therefore, to assess potential impacts under the worst -
case foreseeable conditions, the analyses are based on 2035 traffic volumes.
The exterior noise level standard of 65 dB CNEL would be applied to common outdoor activity areas of
the hotel such as the pool area or common courtyard. The specific design details for the proposed hotels
are currently unknown. The approximate distance from the exterior of the proposed hotel to South H
Street is 150 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Using the above- described FH WA traffic model, the
future (2035) with project traffic noise exposure at the exterior of the closest fagade facing South H Street
would be approximately 64.4 dB CNEL. At this setback from the roadway, the exterior noise impact
would be less than significant.
Sources of noise from the shopping center could potentially include truck deliveries, loading docks,
parking lot vehicle movements, heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and trash
compactors.
Truck movements that do not occur on a public roadway are considered to be a stationary noise source
that would be subject to the City's stationary noise standards. Based on the conceptual layout plans for
Fillings of Feet — Section 15091 NU"of72 October 2015
SR 99nloaft Comm mwl Cents Roject
e
the project, which include the placement of stores along the eastern side of the site, the distance from
probable truck delivery routes to the nearest residences is approximately 350 feet. File data for slowly
moving heavy trucks indicate that the maximum noise level (Lmax) is approximately 73 A- weighted
decibels (dBA) at 50 feet. Accounting for distance to residences and the attenuation provided by the
existing block wall bordering the residences, the Lmax in yards of the closest residences is estimated to be
about 55 dBA. This level is below the 75 dBA (daytime) and 70 dBA (nighttime) Lama criteria in the
noise element. Therefore, noise impacts from onsite truck movements would be less than significant.
Any loading docks would be located no closer than 350 feet from the residences. File data for loading
docks where refrigerated trucks unload indicate that at 75 feet, the L50 noise level during a busy hour of
activity is 57 dB. Accounting for distance and the existing wall, the estimated L50 at the nearest
residential yards is about 39 dB. This is below the 55 dBA (daytime) and 50 dBA (nighttime) level
exceeded 50 percent of the hour (1,50) criteria in the noise element. Therefore, noise impacts from loading
dock activities would be less than significant.
Noise from traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be
significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems, and the
opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities are sporadic and can occur at any time. It
is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet. For this project, the closest proposed parking lots would be approximately 300 feet
from the closest existing homes. It is noted that these would be relatively small parking areas and the vast
majority of the parking stalls for the project would be toward the center of the project site, where they
would be shielded from the surrounding land uses by the intervening commercial and hotel buildings. As
such, overall parking lot noise levels at surrounding properties would be very low and would not be
expected to exceed the standards of the City's noise element. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots
would be less than significant.
Based upon noise studies conducted by Brown - Buntin Associates for other projects, the maximum noise
level produced by a typical un- enclosed trash compactor (Hydra-Fab Model 1200) is approximately 74
dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the equipment, or approximately 45 dBA at a distance of 300 feet
(approximate distance from the closest proposed store to nearby homes). Because trash compactors
operate intermittently, they would not produce noise levels in excess of the City's daytime or nighttime
maximum noise level standards, and the impact would be less than significant.
It can be assumed that the project would include roof - mounted HVAC units on commercial buildings.
Based upon data from large stores similar to those proposed for the project, it is estimated that noise
levels from roof - mounted HVAC units at the closest homes to the project site would be in the range of 40
to 45 dBA. This includes the assumption that the buildings would include rooftop parapets that would
provide acoustic shielding of roof- mounted HVAC units. These levels generally would not be audible
above existing ambient noise levels at the nearby homes and would comply with the City's daytime and
nighttime noise level standards. Therefore, noise impacts from HVAC equipment would be less than
significant.
Findine
Findings of Fect —Se w15091 Pagel ofn October 2015
SR 99MOSking Commercial Center Projw
The project's potential to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a
local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies is considered significant;
however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less- than - significant level
with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would result in exposure of persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. The project impacts are
considered significant but would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM NOI -I, described below.
MM NOI -1. The project shall continuously comply with the following best management practices during
all construction activities and operations of the project:
(a) Limit Construction Hours. No construction activity (including the transportation or delivery of any
materials, tools, equipment, or personnel to or from the project site, or the loading or unloading of
such materials, tools, equipment, or personnel) within 1,000 feet of a residence shall take place
outside of the City's permitted hours of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on
weekends. In addition, all construction equipment shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and be
properly maintained.
(b) Operational Noise. The project shall be designed to limit the amount of offsite noise generated from
future commercial uses to ensure that impacts on any neighboring single - family caned properties are
reduced to below the noise thresholds established by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
C Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level.
The project would have no environmental effects related to noise and vibration that cannot be mitigated to
a less - than - significant level.
A Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
A review of the related past, present, and future projects in the vicinity did not reveal any land uses with
stationary (i.e., non - transportation) noise sources that would be expected to contribute significantly to the
cumulative noise levels at the noise - sensitive receptors affected by the project. This is consistent with the
observation that existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise.
Furthermore, onsite noise sources at any new developments in the area would be required to comply with
the noise standards of the City's Noise Element and Municipal Code.
With respect to traffic noise in the project vicinity, the potential for substantial cumulative noise impacts
exists as a result of the ongoing conversion of primarily agricultural and/or vacant land to urban uses that
Findings of Fact —S Ooo 15091 Page N of 73 Octob NU
SR 99nfosking Commercial Center Pmjmt
u
Cftlr, �,,yir.;
would generate a substantial amount of new vehicular traffic on nearby roadways, as well as the new
interchange at SR 99 and Husking Avenue.
Table 4.10 -10 in the EIR compares existing (2014) traffic noise levels with 2035 (with project) traffic
noise levels. The City's criteria for determining cumulative noise impacts for mobile sources indicate than
cumulative noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable at any location
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to noise.
PUBLIC SERVICES
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less - Than - Significant Impact on the Environment.
The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities or a need for new or physically altered
police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection
services. (Impact PS -2)
The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board. (Impact U -1)
The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects. (Impact U -3)
The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves
or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments. (Impact U -5)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less - Than - Significant Levels.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities or a need for new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services.
(Impact PS -I)
Findings of Fact — Section 15091 Page 49 of 72 October 2015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Center Project
Descrlotion of Simificant Impact
According to the maps prepared by CAL FIRE, the project site is within a Local Responsibility Area with
an "unzoned" fire hazard severity zone. CAL FIRE has determined that Kern County does not contain
designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in a Local Responsibility Area. As such, all of Kern
County is designated " unzoned" on the Fire Hazard Severity Zone map. Similarly, the land surrounding
the project site is within a Local Responsibility Area with an "unzoned" fire hazard severity zone.
Construction and operation of the project would not increase the risk of wildfires in the area. The project
site is currently privately owned vacant land, bordered by existing residential development to the east and
SR 99 to the west. Land to the north and south is vacant and undeveloped. As discussed under the
Environmental Setting section, CAL FIRE has determined that Kem County does not contain designated
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in a Local Responsibility Area and has indicated that the project
site is within a Local Responsibility Area with an "unzoned" fire hazard severity zone. Kem County does
not contain areas that are designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in a Local Responsibility
Area and is therefore considered " unzoned." Accordingly, the project is not expected to expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, impacts related
to wildfires would be less than significant.
The onsite workforce for assembly and construction would consist of laborers, electricians, supervisory
personnel, support personnel, and construction management personnel. The presence of construction
workers would be a temporary occurrence. Operation of the project would provide longer term
employment opportunities in the area. The presence of construction and operational personnel would
result in increased demand for fire protection and emergency response services on the project site, both
for fire suppression and medical emergencies.
As previously stated, KCFD Station No. 52 would provide primary fire suppression and emergency
medical services (along with County EMS) at the project site. Station No. 52 is about 1.4 miles south of
the site in the city of Bakersfield. The project, which would include emergency access routes and other
safety features, would incorporate plans for fire protection. Under the project, the project proponent
would pay development fees for fire protection infrastructure and services determined necessary
according to the county's assessment formulas. Therefore, because the payment of development impact
fees is required, no mitigation is needed. In addition, a development agreement would be entered into
between the City and the project applicant, requiring a fair -share contribution to pay for increased demand
for BED and emergency response services. The contribution would be used by BED to ensure that
adequate fire station facilities, equipment, and department personnel are available to serve the project area
and maintain current response times. These implementation programs would also be used to maintain
funding for County EMS and standing agreements with public and private agencies regarding mutual
emergency aid.
As part of the approval process, the proposed project would be required to conform to the Uniform Fire
Code and the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, Sections 15.64.010 to 15.64.480. These codes require
projects to include specific design features, thereby ensuring sufficient water pressure for fire flows,
appropriate emergency access, and the use of approved building materials. Conformance with these codes
helps to reduce the risks associated with fire hazards and related emergencies. Accordingly, all
construction plans would be approved by the fire marshal or an appropriate representative to ensure that
Findings of Fxt— Section 15091 Page SO of 72 Odors, 2015
SR 99Mosking Commemial Center Projw
all fire code requirements are incorporated into the proposed project. Mitigation Measure MM PS -1 will
ensure that water flow for firefighting purposes would be sufficient. Therefore, because mandatory
development impact fees would be paid to offset any project - related fire protection and emergency
service impacts and Mitigation Measure MM PS -1 would ensure sufficient water for firefighting, impacts
would be less than significant.
Findin
The project's potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered fire protection facilities or a need for new or physically altered fire protection
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services is considered
significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less -than-
significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for fire protection. The project impacts are considered significant but would
be reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM PS -1,
described below.
MM PS-1: Adequate Fire Flows. Before start of construction, a fire flow test shall be required to
demonstrate availability of 2,000 gallons of water per minute at 20 pounds per square inch over a 4 -hour
period.
Sienifrcant Effect
The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. (Impact U -2)
Description of Significant Impact
Potable and irrigation water would be supplied to the project site by GCWD. Wastewater from the
proposed project would be treated by Bakersfield Department of Public Works (BDPW). The construction
and operational impacts of the proposed project on water and wastewater facilities are discussed in more
detail below.
During construction of the proposed project, water needed for construction would be provided through
existing water lines on the site. Dust suppression would require daily watering with the use of water
trucks; however, the water usage during construction would be short term. In addition, the water would be
trucked to the site and would not require new or expanded water conveyance facilities.
Findings of Fact — Becton 15091 Pegs Sr of72 October 2015
SR 99Moskiog Commercial Center Rojwt
`A
J -
QIiCi Ir.� %�.
During operation of the proposed project, project water demands would be met through GCWD's existing
groundwater rights from native aquifer supplies, as well Mr. Giumara's overlying groundwater rights for
the same aquifer that will be pumped from GCWD wells (page 1 of Appendix D). An Agreement for
Overlying Lands in which GCWD acts as an agent will be executed to allow GCWD to utilize John
Giumarra's Overlying Groundwater Rights as a landowner, which would then require new wells to be
drilled.
There is currently no water use on site. Therefore, the project's water demand would all be new water
demand for the project site. Table 4.11 -1 shows the estimated water demand with the proposed project.
With a water demand of 376.4 acre-feet per year, no additional offshe water infrastructure would be
required. Impacts related to water infrastructure would be less than significant.
Wastewater treatment for onsite construction workers would be provided by ports - potties, and stormwater
best management practices would ensure that runoff would not leave the site in large quantities or go
untreated. No new wastewater treatment facilities are proposed or would be required during the
construction phase.
Table 4.11 -2 in the EIR shows the projected amount of wastewater that would be generated by the
proposed project. The wastewater would be conveyed through the trunk line under Hosking Avenue to
BDPW Plant No. 3, which is located west of the project site. The trunk line would be improved in order
to serve the proposed project and a project sewer study will be required as mitigation measure MM U -1 to
ascertain the specific upgrade requirements. Moreover, Plant No. 3 operates at approximately 54% of
capacity (Roldan pers, comm.), leaving sufficient capacity for the project as well as future projects. No
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing treatment facilities
would be required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Finding
The project's potential to result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects is
considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a
less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM U -1, described below.
MM U -1. Sewer Capacity. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase of development, or
along with submittal of a tentative subdivision map, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall
submit a comprehensive Sewer Study to the City Engineer to determine and verify sufficient sewer
capacities downstream of the project The developer shall construct additional sewer infrastructure to
accommodate sewer capacities as identified in the Sewer Study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Fi in of Fect- Section 15091 Page 52 oft2 00aber2015
SR 99Moskiag Commemiel Center Project
F
OPIGINA-
Sienificant Effect
The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from new or
expanded entitlements. (Impact U4)
Description of Significant Impact
Water would be required during construction for activities, such as dust control during grading and site
preparation and concrete mixing and preparation. Potential for groundwater dewatering during
construction is addressed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. Water usage during construction
of the proposed project is expected to be minimal and to occur intermittently during the construction
period. The proposed project would obtain its water supply for construction from GCWD, and there
would be sufficient supplies for use during the construction period. Therefore, impacts on water supplies
during construction would be less than significant.
There is currently no water use on site. Therefore, the project's water demand would all be new water
demand for the project site. As shown in Table 4.11 -1 in the EIR, the proposed project would create an
estimated 376.4 AFY of new water demand. This is approximately 12.6% percent of the Districts'
anticipated total system demand of 3,346 AF in 2015, and 7.5% of overall treated water demands of 5,046
AFY by 2035 (Appendix D of the EIR).
Table 4.11 -3 in the EIR compares GCWD current supplies (groundwater seepage) and demands within
the entire district, including those of the project. The WSA concluded that GCWD would have sufficient
water supplies to meet project demands. Project demands would be met by current groundwater aquifer
supplies and the landowner's overlying groundwater rights for the next 20 years, and during dry years by
using stored supplies of Kenn River canal surface water seepage purchased from KDWD. Therefore,
GCWD will have sufficient water supply to meet GCWD demands and project demands within the entire
service area for the duration of the WSA planning period. Groundwater levels would continue to be
monitored, and should levels begin to decline, alternative supplies from the KDWD surface water seepage
reserve bank or the landowner's overlying groundwater rights could be used to meet project demands
while maintaining sustainable groundwater levels within the native aquifer.
To provide GCWD with additional water supplies, KDWD has agreed to establish a new water supply
agreement and provide additional water to meet the needs of GCWD and meet other anticipated demand
growth within the GCWD service area As part of the new agreement, KDWD will bank water for GCWD
through a groundwater basin by way of seepage via direct recharge in existing spreading basins provided
by KDWD for the benefit of the project area, as part of KDWD's groundwater banking program. KDWD
operates a ground water - banking program, in which water is recharged in the Kern Island Recharge Basin
and/or Kent Island Canal and banked for future extraction and use.
The exact time when this new agreement would he invoked is not certain because the future demand
estimate was based on an assumed growth rate. If demand increases at a rate higher than expected, the
new agreement could be invoked earlier than 2030. Furthermore, if demand increases at a rate lower than
expected and water supply deficit does not occur by 2030, KDWD has made a financial commitment to
paying for the rights to additional water through a tiered payment system. The new water supply
agreement is anticipated to be approved by KDWD and GCWD before the certification of the project
Findings of Fat -Sawn 15031 Page 53 of T3 Ooto 2015
SR 33Mosking Commemiat Q WT F jai
SRI �Ir:A_
EIR. With this agreement, the project would have a sufficient water supply throughout the planning
horizon.
In addition to these additional water supplies, water use will be reduced through water conservation
measures. GCWD will continue to implement several existing water conservation measures and begin to
implement new measures as part of its water conservation program (Appendix D). Mitigation Measure
MM WQ-2 would require onsite mitigation, such as the use of water - efficient fixtures and drought -
tolerant landscaping to further reduce the project's water demand. Should LAFCO deny the annexation
into GCWD's service area, however, an alternative water supply sufficient for the life of the project must
be identified and secured for the project, and would require approval from the alternative water supplier
and the City, as required by MM WQ-3. Other options may include connecting with City lines on the
west side of SR -99 or to California Water Service Company (Cal Water) to the north, which in the case of
Cal Water would also require a service area expansion. Therefore, with the use of GCWD existing
groundwater rights and overlying groundwater rights, as well as implementation of GCWD water
conservation measures and project water - efficient infrastructure and management measures including
MM WQ-2, potential impacts on water supply would be less than significant.
Finchng
The project's potential to result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from new or
expanded entitlements.is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project
would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described
below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with expanded entitlements, which could cause significant
environmental effects. The project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less -than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM WQ -2 and MM WQ -3, described
below.
Implement MM WQ-2. Water Efficient Fixtures (Outdoor), Water Efficient Fixtures (Indoor), and
Drought- Tolerant Landscaping.
Implement MM WQ-3. Water Supply Alternatives.
Significant Effect
The project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs. (Impact U -6)
D escrllnion of Significant Impact
The proposed project is in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, which is served primarily by two landfills.
The proposed project would be served by the Bens landfill, which is operated by the County Waste
Findingsof Fect —S fion 15091 PW 54 ofn October 2015
SR 99Mosking Cmn mial Center Hojnt
rj
v
OciRlrigi
Management Department. Construction and operational impacts related to solid waste are discussed in
more detail below.
There are no existing buildings onsite; therefore, no construction debris would be generated by demolition
activities. Site grading may encounter some debris onsite, such as plastic beverage containers and food
packaging, various scrap metals, and other discarded waste. This type of debris would most likely be sent
to landfills; however, the quantity would be minimal and would have a negligible effect on the capacity of
the existing Bena landfill.
The proposed project would involve construction of a commercial center, hotel and related facilities, and
surface parking spaces and the installation of landscaping. These construction activities would be
expected to occur in two phases. Leftover construction materials and debris, such as metals, glass, . or
wood, would be reused or recycled. Other waste, such as paints and solvents, would be disposed of at an
appropriate hazardous waste facility. The solid waste that would be sent to the Bens landfill would be
limited to the small portion of construction waste that would not be suitable for reuse or recycling and
would not be hazardous. This would meet the diversion requirements set forth by AB 939 and would
dramatically reduce the amount of solid waste transferred to landfills.
Mitigation Measure MM U -2 would be required to ensure compliance with the City's recycling goals.
Therefore, because a substantial majority of the construction materials would be recycled or reused onsite
instead of being disposed of in a local landfill, solid waste impacts on existing landfills from construction
materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
During operation, the proposed project would generate waste from retail and hotel uses. Solid waste
generated at the project site would be processed at the Bena landfill, which, as of July 2013, had a
remaining capacity of 32,808,260 cubic yards, or 62 %. It is estimated that the proposed project would
produce 5.4 tons of solid waste per year, according to rates from CalRecycle's Waste Characterization
table. A factor of 1 ton to 3.7 cubic yards converts the project's 5.4 tons of solid waste per year to 19.98
cubic yards, or 0.00006% of capacity at the Bena landfill. Therefore, existing landfills would have
sufficient capacity for the proposed project, and solid waste impacts on existing landfills from debris
associated with project operation would be less than significant.
The continued generation of solid waste within the county is placing pressure on local landfills, and the
additional waste generated by the proposed project would increase stress on these landfills. To minimize
impacts on local landfills, the proposed project would be operated in compliance with the City's recycling
programs, consistent with City ordinances to reduce the solid waste generated by development proposals.
Mitigation is required to ensure compliance with the City's recycling program. After mitigation, impacts
would be less than significant
Findin
The project's potential to result in service by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs is considered significant; however, potential
adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with the
implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Findings of Fact- Section 15091 Page 55 of 72 October 2015
SR 99MoAng C..., Center P Jm
O
GRIGNAL
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findin
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with landfills with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs, which could cause significant environmental effects. The project
impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM U -2, described below.
MM U -2. Waste Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent
shall submit a waste management plan to the City of Bakersfield to demonstrate how the project will
comply with Assembly Bill 939 and achieve 50% or greater diversion rate for both construction and
operational solid waste. In addition, the project shall institute onsite recycling and composting services to
reduce offsite, waste- related emissions associated with the proposed project as identified under MM
GHG -l.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would not fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. (Impact U -7)
Description of Significant Impact
Construction and operation of the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste, namely AB 939, as described in the Regulatory Setting, above.
Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be disposed of in accordance with AB 939, with
oversight from the City's local enforcement agency. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with
applicable solid waste laws, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Findin
The project's potential to result in failure to comply with federal, slate, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste is considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project
would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described
below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with landfills with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs, which could cause significant environmental effects. The project
impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM U -2 and MM GHG -1, described previously above.
Fmdingsof Fad— aedion 15091 Pegg %of'R Odob 2015
SR 99Mosking Co emml Cm P imt
i
pPl i(i "Al.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of
energy. (Impact U -8)
Description of Significant Impact
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts on natural gas services. The project site is
undeveloped and does not currently have natural gas service. The proposed project's projected natural gas
demand is based on calculations from Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this document.
Estimated natural gas usage for the proposed project is summarized in Table 4.11 -5. The proposed
800,000 square feet of commercial retail uses is projected to consume approximately 8.9 million British .
thermal units (BTUs) of natural gas per year, while the proposed hotel is projected to consume
approximately 2.9 million BTUs of natural gas per year, for a combined total of approximately 11.8
million BTUs per year. This is a small percentage of natural gas usage compared with the overall amount
used within Kern County. Specifically, in 2013, the county used approximately 254 trillion BTUs of
natural gas.
As indicated in the Environmental Setting section, natural gas supplies to California are expected to
remain plentiful for the next several decades. The total resource base (i.e., gas that is recoverable with
today's technology) for the lower 48 states is estimated to be about 975 trillion cubic feet, enough to
continue current production levels for more than 50 years. Additional pipeline capacity and open access
have contributed to the long -term availability of natural gas supplies for California (California Gas and
Electric Utilities 2014). Interstate pipelines that currently serve California include the Ruby, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Kent River Transmission Company, Mojave Pipeline Company, Gas
Transmission Northwest, Transwestem Pipeline Company, Questar Southern Trails, Tuscarora, and
Bajanorte/North Baja pipelines (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2014). Therefore, an adequate
volume of natural gas exists to supply the demands of the proposed project. The project applicant would
work with PG &E to design and install the necessary infrastructure that would tie into existing lines within
existing roadways.
PG &E has natural gas lines in the project vicinity that supply residential and commercial customers. It is
anticipated that PG &E will be able to accommodate the proposed project. Small natural gas distribution
pipelines would be installed within the site to connect project facilities to existing PG &E infrastructure.
This would result in minor construction impacts along existing utility easements. These impacts are
discussed in the respective resource sections (e.g., air quality, GHG emissions, noise) of this DEIR.
Impacts associated with the supply of natural gas would be less than significant
PG &E currently has power lines in the vicinity of the project that serve existing demand (Appendix 1).
The existing power lines would be capable of supporting mixed retail as part of future development
(Settlemhe pers. comm.). There is no need for additional infrastructure (such as a new substation) to
supply the proposed project with electricity.
Detailed information regarding daily, monthly, or yearly usage is proprietary information of the utility
and is unavailable. Summer loads produce the highest demands in the Central Valley because of a variety
Findings ofFW - Section 15091 Pnge 57 of 72 October 2015
SR 99/Ho9kh4 C Memg Center Project
v
WL
of uses, including irrigation for agricultural production and the operation of residential and commercial
air conditioners. The proposed project's demand for electricity is summarized in Table 4.11 -6 of the EIR.
It is estimated that total demand from the proposed project would be approximately 8,320,000 kilowatt-
hours per year (kWhtyr), based on calculations from Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this
document. With implementation of the mitigation identified in Section 4.6, electricity usage would dip to
5,643,600 kWh/yr. Application of the mitigation measures would ensure that the project would not result
in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
The electrical infrastructure for the proposed project would be designed according to current codes and
applicable safety standards. The proposed project would not require major electrical power lines or
substations, which could substantially affect the environment. The existing electrical distribution system
would be upgraded within the project boundaries. The construction of these facilities would PG &E to
meet current and future foreseeable demand from the project site. The applicant would work with PG &E
to design and install the appropriate infrastructure to supply electricity to the project site. Mitigation
Measure MM GHG -I would require onsite mitigation incorporated in the project design to reduce
consumption of electricity through the use of high - efficiency lighting. With Mitigation Measure MM
GHG -1, impacts associated with the needed upgrades and the installation of new infrastructure would be
less than significant.
Findine
The project's potential to result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy is
considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a
less -than- significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts associated wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, which
could cause significant environmental effects. The project impacts are considered significant but would be
reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GHG -1,
described previously above.
C. Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level.
The project would have no environmental effects on public services that cannot be mitigated to a less -
than- significant level.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Less -Than-
Signifrcant Impact on the Environment.
Sieaifrcant Effect
The project would result in a cumulatively considerable public services impact.
Findings a Fact - Section 15091 Page M orn October 2015
SR 99moeking Commercial Center Project
Ov
a
nRIGI G' ^I.
Description of Significant Impact
The cumulative context for public services and utilities impacts is growth within the planning area, as
reflected in the 2002 MBGP. The associated potential increase in population is considered in the
cumulative scenario.
Cumulative impacts on public services would occur if other projects would unduly tax the ability of
public service agencies to provide adequate services and response times in the communities that they
serve, resulting in the need to construct new or expanded facilities. The construction or expansion of those
facilities could result in significant environmental impacts.
Cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems would occur if utility providers would be unable to
provide adequate water, wastewater, energy, or solid waste disposal services and accommodate other
projects. Because of existing local infrastructure, the proposed project is expected to place less-than-
significant demand on public services and utilities.
The projects identified in Table 34 in the EIR would substantially increase demands on public service
providers and utility services, including the need for infrastructure expansion. At present, adequate
sources of energy and water are available, and wastewater infrastructure and landfill capacity are also
adequate. Over the long term, the current water supply available to GCWD would not be sufficient
beyond 2030. However, GCWD will be entering into an agreement with Kem Delta Water District to
provide sufficient water supplies through GCWD's long -term planning horizon, and to specifically
address multiple dry years, as well. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that, as new development
applications are submitted to the City, new impact fees will be assessed and collected to ensure that
adequate police and fire protection services continue to be provided.
Currently, several utility agencies are expanding capacity and increasing production to meet the
increasing needs of the City, the blueprint for which is provided in the City's general plan and regional
growth estimates. In June of 2010, Bakersfield Department of Public Works increased the total treatment
capacity of Plant No. 3. In addition, Pacific Gas and Electric Company is currently expanding the
capacity of its energy infrastructure. Incorporation of the measures identified above for the proposed
project would reduce impacts to less - than - cumulatively considerable levels.
Finding
The project's potential to result in a cumulatively considemble public services impact is considered
significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less -than-
significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts that would result in cumulatively considerable public services impact. The
project impacts are considered significant but would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM PS -1 and MM U -1 through MM U -2, described above.
Findings of FW— Section 15091 top 59 of 72 October 2015
SR 99/Hosking Commercul Cm rTgwt
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to public services.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the Environment,
or Have a Less- Than - Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to, level-of-service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (Impact TR -2)
The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
(Impact TR -5)
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less- Than - Significant Levels.
Significant Effect
The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation, including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit (Impact TR -1)
Description of Significant Impact
Temporary increases in traffic from project construction have the potential to increase the LOS on study
area roadways w a result of worker commutes, deliveries, temporary road closures, and other construction
activities that would occur along or in surrounding roadways. The impact of construction - generated traffic
on area traffic volumes and LOS is considered potentially significant, but implementation of a traffic
control plan identified in mitigation measure MM TR -I below would reduce this impact to a less -than-
significant level by including requirements such as requiring construction - generated traffic to avoid
intersections and roadway segments that operate at LOS D or worse at the peak periods by either traveling
different routes or by traveling at non -peak times of day; planning access to existing residences in the area
at all times; providing adequate parking for construction workers' vehicles, construction trucks, and
equipment within the designated staging areas throughout the construction period; and restricting delivery
of construction materials to between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to avoid more congested
morning and evening hours. Additional requirements are also listed in MM TR -1. Construction traffic
impacts would be less than significant.
Findings ofFan— Section 15091 Pnge W of@ Om ,2015
SR 99Mosking Commercial Censer Aoject
l
The first phase of the proposed project is expected to be completely operational in 2017. The second
phase of the proposed project is expected to be complete in 2020. In order to estimate future conditions
with the project, future traffic was added to the 2014 counts plus the project so that impacts are assessed
for 2017 and 2020.
The City of Bakersfield and Kern County have two standards for determining whether project traffic has a
significant impact and therefore requires mitigation. First, mitigation is required when the addition of
project traffic causes the LOS of an intersection or street segment to drop below LOS C. Second, if an
intersection or street operates below LOS C in the base year prior to the addition of project traffic,
mitigation would be required only as necessary to maintain the same LOS existing prior to the project's
impacts.
Tables 4.12 -15, 4.12 -16, and 4.12 -17 in the EIR summarize the LOS or V/C ratio projected at the stop -
controlled intersections, signalized intersections, and roadway segments, respectively, under future
conditions with the proposed project in place.
The proposed project would cause an increase in traffic that would have a significant impact on area
roadways and intersections in the future. As shown in Table 4.12 -7, the completed project is expected to
generate 26,337 daily trips on an average weekday and 668 weekday AM peak hour trips, 2,410 weekday
PM peak hour trips, and 2,918 Saturday peak hour trips.
The following sections describe the locations projected to exceed the City standard of LOS C under 2017
and 2020 conditions (note that 2035 conditions are described in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impact Analysis).
Except where noted, the locations and timing of identified deficiencies are the same as they are under No
Project conditions. However, in general, the additional trips added to the system by the proposed project
would result in higher levels of congestion than without the project.
2017 Conditions with Project
Under 2017 baseline conditions plus the proposed project, the following 14 unsignalized intersections
(see Table 4.12 -15 in the EIR), five signalized intersections (see Table 4.12 -16), and four roadway
segments (see Table 4.12 -17 in the EIR) are projected to exceed LOS C or V/C ratio of 0.80 during one or
more of the analysis periods. For intersections that exceed LOS C during 2017 without Phase I of the
project, impacts are also identified when the contribution of Phase I- related traffic would increase delay
by more than 5 seconds during the AM, PM, or Saturday peak hours.
Intersections
Umigna/ized
• Golden Gate Drive/Panama Lane (ID 17)
• Cottonwood Road/Panama Lane (ID 28)
• South Union AvenueBerkshim Road (ID 36)
Findings of Fecl - Sc on 15091 Page 61 of 72 Odoter 2015
SR 99MOSking COm.e W CmoerP i.
• Ashe Road/McCutchen Road (ID 38)
• Mountain Ridge Drive/McCutchen Road (ID 39)
• Akers Road/Hosking Avenue (ID 41)
• Hughes Lane/Hosking Avenue (ID 43)
• Cottonwood Road/ Husking Avenue (ID 49) (Recently Signalized)
• South H Street/ McKee Road (ID 53)
• South Union Avenue/ McKee Road (ID 54)
• Akers Road/Taft Highway (SR 119) (ID 56)
• Hughes Lane/Taft Highway (SR 119) (ID 58)
• Shannon Drive/Taft Highway (ID 61)
• Cottonwood Road/Panama Road (ID 63)
Signalized
• South H Street/Panama Lane (ID 24)
• Colony Street/Berkshire Road (ID 33)
• South H StreetMosking Avenue (I) 46)
• Ashe Road/Taft Highway (SR 119) (ID 74)
• Gosford Road/Panama Lane (ID 87)
Roadway Segments
• Parma Lane, between W ible Road and SR 99
• Husking Avenue, between SR 99 and South H Street
• Taft Highway (SR 119), between Wible Road and South H Street
• Taft Highway (SR 119), between South H Street and Chevalier Road
Findings of Fact -Sawn 15091 Page 62 of72 October 2015
SR 99Mosking Commemiel Center Project
ri'IGT!,1L
2020 Conditions with Project
Under 2020 conditions with the project, the following 14 unsignalized intersections (see Table 4.12 -18 in
the EIR), 10 signalized intersections (see Table 4.12 -19), and six roadway segments (see Table 4.12 -20 in
the EIR) are projected to exceed LOS C or a V/C ratio of 0.8 during one or more of the analysis periods.
Intersections
Unsignalized
• Golden Gate Drive/Panama Lane (ID 17)
• South Union Avenue/ Berkshire Road (ID 36)
• Ashe Road/ McCutchen Road (ID 38)
• Hughes Lane/ Hosking Avenue (ID 43)
• South H Street/McKee Road (ID 53)
• South Union Avenue/McKee Road (ID 54)
• Akers Road/Taft Highway (SR 119) (ID 56)
• Hughes Lane/Taft Highway (SR 119) (ID 58)
• Shannon Drive raft Highway (ID 61)
• Cottonwood Road/Panama Road (ID 63)
Signalized
• South Union Avenue/White Lane (ID 8)
• South H Street/Panama Lane (ID 24)
• Monitor Street/Panama Lane (ID 25)
• South Union Avenue/Panama Lane (ID 26)
• Colony Street/Berkshire Road (ID 33)
• South H Street/Berkshire Road (ID 34)
• South H Street/Project Site (ID 37)
Findings of Fmt — Smtion 15091 Page 63 of 72 Onober 2015
SR 99/Hoskin C91 OWW Cemer Project
• Stine Road & Hosking Avenue (ID 40)
• South H Street & Hosking Avenue (ID 46)
• Ashe Road(Faft Highway (SR 19) (ID 74)
• Gosford Road/Panama Lane (ID 87)
Roadway Segments
• Panama Lane: Wible Road —SR 99
• Hosking Avenue: Wible Road —SR 99
• Hosking Avenue: SR 99 —South H Street
• Taft Highway (SR 119): Wible Rd —South H Street
• Taft Highway (SR 119): South H Street —Chevalier Road
• Panama Road: Chevalier Road—Cottonwood Road
Finding
The project's potential to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit is considered significant;
however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less- than - significant level
with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would result in a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. The project impacts are
considered significant but would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM TR -1 through MM TR -3, described below.
MM TR -1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence to the
City of Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate compliance with the following:
1) Develop and Implement a Traffic Control Plan. The project proponent shall develop a
Construction Traffic Control Plan in accordance with the policies of the City of Bakersfield Public
Works Department. The purpose of the Plan is to mitigate construction - related traffic impacts
throughout the course of project construction. The Plan may include, but is not limited to, the
following elements:
Findings of Feel — Section 15091 Page "of]2 Oetober 2015
SR"ffl tng Commercial Center Proj=
(i) Plan for communicating construction plans with transit providers, emergency service providers,
residences, and businesses in the project vicinity that may be affected by project construction.
(ii) Identification of roadway segments or intersections that exceed or are approaching the standard
of Level of Service C, and provisions for construction- generated traffic to avoid these locations
at the peak periods, either by traveling different routes or by traveling at non -peak times of day.
(iii) Access and circulation plan for use by emergency vehicles when lane closures adjacent to the
site are in effect, including provisions for advance notice to local fire and police departments to
ensure that alternative evacuation and emergency routes are designed to maintain response
times.
(iv) Plan for maintaining access to existing residences on the east side of South H Street timing
construction activities.
(v) Provision for adequate parking for construction worker vehicles, construction trucks, and
equipment within the designated staging areas throughout the construction period.
(vi) Plan for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation during project construction,
where safe to do so.
(vii) Provisions for traffic controls on roadways adjacent to the project, if needed during lane
closures m major construction activities which affect road right -of -way. Provisions could
include flag persons wearing bright orange or red vests and using a Stop/Slow paddle to control
oncoming traffic; posting of construction warning signs in accordance with local standards or
those set forth in the Mamuol on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway
Administration 2001) in advance of the construction area and at any intersection that provides
access to the construction area
(viii)Writren notification provided to contractors regarding appropriate routes to and from the
construction site, and the weight and speed limits on local roads used to access the construction
site.
(ix) Provisions for signs to be posted at all active construction areas giving the name and telephone
number or a -mail address of the City staff person designated to receive complaints regarding
construction traffic.
MM TR -2: Phase 1 Traffic Improvements. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the first phase
of project development (Phase 1), the project proponent shall provide evidence to the City of Bakersfield
Planning Division to demonstrate that each of the improvements listed below has been designed in
accordance with City Standards and will be constructed prior to Opening Day for Phase I or provide its
percent share of the local mitigation transportation fee and/or the Regional Transportation Impact Fee
(RTIF). All mitigation will be implemented prior to the impact occurring, pursuant to the mitigation fee
programs, and the project proponent shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits prior to construction
activities.
(a) Construct improvements at the intersection of Colony Street/Berkshire Road (ID 33) by adding one
northbound through lane and one southbound through lane.
(b) Construct improvements at the intersection of South Union Avenue/ Berkshire Road (ID 36) by
installing a traffic signal and adding one eastbound left-turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one
eastbound right-turn lane, one westbound left-tum lane, one westbound through lane, one westbound
right -turn lane, one northbound left -turn lane, two northbound through lanes, one northbound right-
Findings of Fact — Section 15091 N M.fr2 October 1015
SR 9951reking Commemid Center 1',nnet
turn lane, one southbound left -tum lane, two southbound through lanes, and one southbound right-
turn lane.
(c) Construct improvements at the intersection of South H Street/Hosking Avenue (ID 46) by adding one
eastbound left -turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one eastbound right -turn lane, one westbound
left -turn lane, one westbound through lane, one northbound through lane, one northbound right -turn
lane, one southbound through lane, and one southbound right -turn lane.
(d) Construct improvements to widen Husking Avenue, between State Route (SR) 99 and South H Street,
by adding four lanes and a median.
(e) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Golden Gate
Drive/Panama Lane (ID 17).
(f) Pay a 13% share of local mitigation transportation fee to construct improvements at the intersection of
Monitor Street/Panama Lane (ID 25), which will include the addition of two northbound through
Imes and two southbound through lanes.
(g) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at Cottonwood Road/Panama Lane (ID 28), which will
include installation of a traffic signal and the addition of two eastbound left -tum lanes, two eastbound
through lanes, one eastbound right -tum Ime, two westbound left -turn lanes, two west -bound through
Imes, one westbound right -turn lane, two northbound left -tum lanes, one northbound through lane,
one northbound right -turn lane, two southbound left -turn lanes, one southbound through Inc, and one
southbound right-turn lane.
(h) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Ashe Road/McCutchm Road (ID 38),
which will include installation of a traffic signal and the addition of two eastbound left -turn lanes, one
eastbound through lane, one eastbound right -turn lane, two westbound left -turn lanes, one westbound
through lane, one westbound right -turn lane, two northbound left -turn lanes, two northbound through
Imes, one northbound right -tum lane, two southbound left -turn lanes, two southbound through lanes,
and one southbound right -turn lane.
(i) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Mountain Ridge Drive/McCmchen
Road (ID 39), which will include installation of a traffic signal and the addition of one eastbound left-
turn lane, two eastbound through Imes, one westbound left -turn lane, two westbound through lanes,
two northbound left -turn lanes, one northbound right -tum lane, two southbound left -turn lanes, and
one southbound right -turn lane.
(j) Pay the RTIF and a 6.96% share of local mitigation transportation fee to construct improvements at
the intersection of Cottonwood Road/Hosking Avenue (ID 49), which will include the addition of one
eastbound right -turn lane.
(k) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of South H Street/McKee Road (ID 53),
which will include the addition of one northbound through lane and one southbound through lane.
(1) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of South Union Avenue/McKee Road (ID
54), which will include installation of a traffic signal and the addition of one eastbound left -tum lane,
one eastbound right -turn lane, one westbound left -turn lane, one westbound right -turn lane, one
northbound left -turn lane, one northbound through lane, one northbound right -turn lane, one
southbound left -turn lane, one southbound through lane, and one southbound right -tum lane.
(m) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Akers Road/Taft Highway (ID 56),
which will include installation of a traffic signal and the addition of one eastbound left -tum lane, one
Findingsof Feet— Secaon 15091 Page"of 72 October 2015
SR 99MOaking Commercial Center Project
eastbound right -turn lane, one westbound left -tum lane, one westbound right -turn lane, one
northbound right -turn lane, and one southbound right -turn lane.
(n) Pay the RTIF and a 7.2% share of local mitigation transportation fee to construct improvements at the
intersection of Hughes Lane/raft Highway (ID 58), which will include installation of a traffic signal
and the addition of one eastbound left -tam lane, one eastbound right -tum lane, one westbound left-
turn lane, one westbound right -turn lane, one northbound right -turn lane, and one southbound right
tam lane.
(o) Pay the RTIF and a 3.4% share of local mitigation transportation fee to construct improvements at the
intersection of Shannon Drive/Taft Highway (ID 61), which will include installation of a traffic signal
and the addition of one eastbound left -turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one eastbound right -turn
lane, one westbound left -turn lane, one westbound through lane, one westbound right -turn lane, one
northbound through lane, one northbound right -turn lane, and one southbound right -tam lane.
(p) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Cottonwood Road/Taft Highway (SR
119) (ID 63), which will include the addition of one eastbound left -turn Zane and one eastbound right-
turn lane.
(q) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Ashe Road/Taft Highway (SR 119) (ID
74), which will include the addition of one eastbound through lane, one eastbound right -turn lane, one
westbound through lane, one westbound right -turn lane, one northbound left -turn lane, one
northbound right -turn lane, and one southbound left -turn lane.
(r) Pay the RTIF and a 2.08% share of local mitigation transportation fee to construct improvements at
the intersection of Gosford Road/Panama Lane (ID 87), which will include the addition of one
eastbound through lane, one eastbound right -turn lane, one westbound through lane, two northbound
left -turn lanes, one northbound through Inc, one northbound right -turn lane, one southbound left -tum
lane, and one southbound through lane.
(s) Pay the RTIF to widen Taft Highway (SR 119) between Wible Road and South H Street by two
additional lanes.
It) Pay the RTIF to widen Taft Highway (SR 119) between South H Street and Chevalier Road by two
additional lanes.
MM TR -3: Phase H Traffic Improvements. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the second
phase of project development (Phase 11), the project proponent shall provide evidence to the City of
Bakersfield Planning Division to demonstrate that each of the improvements listed below has been
designed in accordance with City Standards and will be constructed prior to Opening Day for Phase II
(anticipated to be Year 2020, but actual year subject to market conditions) or provide its percent share of
the local mitigation transportation fee and/or the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF). All
mitigation will be implemented prior to the impact occurring, pursuant to the mitigation fee programs and
the project proponent shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits prior to construction activities.
(a) Pay the RTIF and a 7.61% share of local mitigation transportation fee to construct improvements at
the intersection of South Union Avenue/White Lane (ID 8), which would include the addition of one
eastbound left -turn lane, one eastbound through lane, one westbound left -turn lane, one northbound
right -turn Zane, and one southbound right -turn lane.
(b) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Golden Gate Drive/Panama Lane (ID
17), which would include the addition of one eastbound left -tum lane, one eastbound through lane,
one eastbound right -turn lane, two westbound left -turn lanes, one northbound through Inc, and one
southbound left -turn lane.
Findings or Fact —S 0.15091 Page 61 of 72 OLWI r2015
SR WM.,king Commercial Cemer Project
v
Of ?16gJn.L
(c) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of South Union Avenue/Panama Lane (ID
26), which would include the addition of one eastbound left -tutu lane, two eastbound through lanes,
one westbound left -turn lane, one westbound through lane, one westbound right -tum lane, one
northbound left -turn lane, one southbound left -tutu lane, and one southbound right -turn lane.
(d) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Stine Road/Hosking Avenue (ID 40),
which would include the addition of one eastbound left -lute lane, one eastbound through Zane, one
eastbound right -turn lane, one westbound left -turn lane, one westbound through lane, and one
westbound right -mm lane.
(e) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Hughes Lane/Hosking Avenue (ID 43),
which would include the installation of a traffic signal and the addition of two eastbound through
Imes, one westbound left -turn lane, two westbound through lanes and one northbound left -turn lane.
(t) Pay the RTIF to construct improvements at the intersection of Akers Road/Taft Highway (ID 56),
which would include the addition of one eastbound through lane and one westbound through lane.
(g) Pay the RTIF to Widen Hosking Avenue between Wible Road and State Route 99, which will add
two lanes.
(h) Pay the RTIF to Widen Panama Road between Chevalier Road and Cottonwood Road, which will add
two lanes.
Siuniliant Effect
The project would not substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Impact TR -3)
Description of Significant Impact
No obstacles to sight distance are expected to result from project construction. No sharp roadway curves
currently exist in the study area, nor would such curves be created by the proposed project However, the
maneuvering of construction - related vehicles and equipment among the general - purpose traffic on area
roadways could potentially cause safety hazards. This impact is considered potentially significant, but
preparation of a Traffic Control Plan under MM TR -1 would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant
level.
The proposed site plan would be developed using the Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual
standards for traffic engineering (City of Bakersfield 2005). The City has a site design and review process
that includes review of site entrances, line of sight review, drive approaches, return radii, and throat width
to ensure that there is sufficient space for internal circulation and for safe ingress to and egress from the
project site.
The City of Bakersfield Fire Department would be consulted in the design review process to ensure that
standards for fire truck turning radii are met and that the site driveways are designed to City standards to
prevent excessive queuing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Findings of Feet - section 15091 Pege bg of@ October 2015
SR 99MOsking Commetend Center Project
Findin
The project's potential to substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use is
considered significant; however, potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a
less- than - significant level with the implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. The project impacts are considered
significant but would be reduced to a less - than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM TR -1, described above.
Sienificant Effect
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Impact TR -4)
Description of Sianificant Impact
Emergency access to the project site could be affected by project construction; specifically, lane closures
and construction - related traffic could delay or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles. This impact
is considered potentially significant, but preparation of a Traffic Control Plan under MM TR -I above
would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level by communicating construction plans with
emergency service providers and providing an access and circulation plan for use by emergency vehicles
when lane closures adjacent to the site are in effect, including provisions for advance notice to local fire
and police departments to ensure that alternative evacuation and emergency routes are designed to
maintain response times. Impacts from construction causing a potential emergency access impact would
be less than significant.
The project site has two proposed points of access, both of which would be signalized. One access point
would be the intersection of Colony Street/Berkshire Road (ID 33), and the other would be a site access
street that intersects with South H Street (ID 37). The City of Bakersfield Fire Department would be
consulted during the design review process to ensure that there is sufficient space for fire truck turning
radii and drive aisle width. Because the project would not be permitted without adequate fire truck access,
operation - related impacts on emergency access would be less than significant.
Finding
The project's potential to result in inadequate emergency access is considered significant; however,
potential adverse effects caused by the project would be reduced to a less- than - significant level with the
implementation of mitigation, as described below.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce impacts that
would result in inadequate emergency access. The project impacts are considered significant but would be
Findings of Fm —Satin 15091 Pogo 69 of Y2 October 2015
SR 99MOSking Commercial Cosner Projat
`F
7 G
OI91G!fJAL
reduced to a less- than - significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TR -1 through
MM TR -3, described above.
C. Effects of the Project that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less - Than - Significant Level.
Significant Effect
The project would result in a significant and unavoidable project -related transportation impact.
Description of Significant him
Two project - specific traffic impacts would occur that cannot be mitigated to a less- than - significant level.
As described on page 4.12 -20 of the draft EIR and shown on Table 4.12 -22, project impacts on South H
Street/Panama Lane would significant and unavoidable and because the intersection is already fully
improved, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this significant impact. Moreover, as shown on
Table 4.12 -23, the segment of Panama Lane, between Wible Road and SR 99 would be significant and
unavoidable and no feasible mitigation is available because the segment is already fully improved.
Findine
The project would result in a significant and unavoidable project - related transportation impact Specific
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the FIR because the affected
intersection and roadway segment are built out and additional capacity is not possible. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines would be required
prior to approval of the project.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts that would result in cumulatively considerable transportation impact. The
project impacts are considered significant because in both cases no additional expansion or other solution
is available to reduce traffic congestion at the intersection of South H Street/Panama Lane and the
roadway segment of Panama Lane, between Wible Road and SR 99. These two impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project that Would Have a Less-Than-
Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project would not result in a cumulatively less- than - significant transportation impact.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Would Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
Significant Effect
Findings of Fact — Section I%sl Pop 70 of 72 Oot*W2015
SR 99Mmking C0000erciel Cemf Project
�Cr�.4F
O
C_
ORIGINAL
The project would result in a cumulatively considerable transportation impact.
Description of Significant Impact
As shown in Tables 4.12 -27 through 4.12 -29 in the EIR, implementation of all mitigation measures listed
above would reduce impacts to less - than - significant levels for their respective locations, with the
exception of one ureignalized intersection and six signalized intersections.
1) Operations at unsignalized South Union Avenue/Berkshire Road would remain at LOS F during the
Saturday peak hour under 2035 conditions with the project's cumulative contribution and would
remain at LOS F with mitigation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
2) Operations at signalized South H Street/White Lane would remain at LOS F during the PM and
Saturday peak hours under 2035 conditions with the project's cumulative contribution, and would
improve to LOS D with mitigation during the PM and Saturday peak hours, resulting in significant
and unavoidable impacts.
3) Operations at signalized Stine Road/Panama Lane would remain at LOS F during the AM and
Saturday peak hours under 2035 conditions with the project's cumulative contribution, would
improve to LOS D with mitigation during the AM peak hour, and would remain at LOS F during the
Saturday peak hour, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.
4) Mitigation at signalized Akers Road/Panama Lane would remain at LOS E during the AM peak hour
under 2035 conditions with the project's cumulative contribution and would improve to LOS D with
mitigation; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
5) Operations at signalized Wible Road/Panama Lane would degrade from LOS C to LOS D during the
AM and PM peak hours under 2035 conditions with the project's cumulative contribution and would
remain at LOS D with mitigation, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. During the
Saturday peak hour for Wible Road/Panama Lane, operations would remain at LOS F under 2035
conditions with the project's cumulative contribution and would improve but still remain at LOS F
with mitigation; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
6) Operations at signalized South H Street/Hosking Avenue would remain at LOS F during the Saturday
peak hour under 2035 conditions and the project's cumulative contribution and would improve to
LOS E with mitigation, and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
7) Operations at signalized Southbound SR 99 off- ramp/Taft Highway (SR 119) would remain at LOS F
during the Saturday peak hour under 2035 conditions and the project's cumulative contribution and
would improve to LOS D with mitigation, and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation is not available for impacts identified at four signalized intersections (IDs 4: Southbound SR
99 off- ramp/White Lane, 21: Southbound SR 99 off- ramp/Panama Lane, ID 22: Northbound SR 99 off -
ramp/Panama Lane, and ID 24: South H Street/Panama Lane) and one roadway segment (Panama Lane,
between Wible Road and SR 99) because their current condition is built out and additional capacity is not
hndingsof Felt —Smtion 15091 Page 71 ofn October 2015
SR 99moeking CommemW Cer Prnjmt
possible. Impacts at these four signalized intersections and one roadway segment would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Finding
The project would result in a cumulatively considerable transportation impact. Specific considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR because the affected intersections and
roadway segments are built out and additional capacity is not possible. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines would be required prior to
approval of the project.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findin
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to the project to reduce substantial
adverse physical impacts that would result in cumulatively considerable transportation impact. The
project impacts are considered significant.
Mitigation is not available for impacts identified at four signalized intersections (IDs 4: Southbound SR
99 off- rimp/White Lane, 21: Southbound SR 99 off-ramp/Panama Lane, ID 22: Northbound SR 99 off -
ramp/Panama Lane, and ID 24: South H Street/Panama Lane) and one roadway segment (Panama Lane,
between Wible Road and SR 99) because their current condition is built out and additional capacity is not
possible.
Findings of Fut- Section 15091 Page 72 ofn October 2015
SR WftO king Commercial Cemer Project
7
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093
for
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project
GPA/ZC 13 -0417
Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2007101067)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a
project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining whether to approve the project.
The SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project (project) would result in environmental effects that,
although mitigated to the extent feasible by the implementation of mitigation measures required for the
project, would remain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as discussed in the final
environmental impact report (EIR) and CEQA findings of fact. The proposed project would result in
significant project and cumulative transportation impacts, which constitutes the impacts for which this
statement of overriding considerations is made.
The project would result in project significant and unavoidable impacts at one intersection (South H
Street/Panama Lane) and one roadway segment (Panama Lane, between Wible Road and SR 99).
Cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts would occur at one un- signalized intersection (South
Union Avenue/Berkshire Road), ten signalized intersections (South H Street/White Lane; Stine
Road/Panama Lane; Akers Road/Panama Lane; Wible Road/Panama Lane; South H Street/Hosking
Avenue; Southbound SR 99 off- ramp/Taft Highway [SR 119]; Southbound SR 99 off- ramp/White Lane;
Southbound SR 99 off- ramp/Panama Lane; Northbound SR 99 off- mmp/Panama Lane; and South H
Street/Panama Lane); and one roadway segment (Panama Lane, between Wible Road and SR 99).
Operations at these intersections and roadway segments would remain at significant and unavoidable
levels, even with feasible mitigation in place in several cases. Mitigation is not available for impacts
identified at four of these signalized intersections (Southbound SR 99 off- ramp/White Lane, Southbound
SR 99 off- ramp/Panama Lane, Northbound SR 99 off- ramp/Panama Lane, and South H Street/Panama
Lane) and one roadway segment (Panama Lane, between Wible Road and SR 99) because their current
condition is built out and additional capacity is not possible.
Findings
This City of Bakersfield finds and determines in recommending approval of the development of the SR
99/Hosking Commercial Center Project that it has considered the identified means of lessening or
avoiding the project's significant effects. The City of Bakersfield further finds and determines that the
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide
environmental benefits of the project, as discussed below, outweigh its unavoidable adverse
environmental effects. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield finds and determines in recommending approval
Section 15093 1 October 2015
SR 99/liwking Commercial Center Project
that such benefits override, outweigh, and make "acceptable" any such remaining environmental impacts
of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 (a) and (b)).
The following benefits and considerations outweigh such significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the
findings, the final EIR, and the record of proceedings for the project. Each of these benefits and
considerations constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if
a court were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration justifies project
approval, the City would stand by its determination that the remaining benefits or considerations we
sufficient to justify and substantiate project approval.
Facts
Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project,
independent of the other benefits, and the City deternines that the adverse environmental impacts of the
project are "acceptable" if any of these benefits would be realized. The project would provide benefits as
follows:
1. The project would provide an accessible regional retail shopping center that meets the growing
demands of the residents and planned communities in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern
County.
2. The project would assemble a variety of retailers that would satisfy a majority of the shopping needs
of the surrounding existing and planned neighborhoods, thus eliminating the need for residents to
leave their neighborhoods for goods and services.
3. The project would provide a multi -level hotel to accommodate regional travelers coming to the site
and the greater Bakersfield area.
4. The project would provide a highly visible shopping center for regional shopping needs and
community development as well as a buffer between existing residential development east of the
project site and SR 99.
5. The project would provide a gathering place for City of Bakersfield residents and visitors that
includes shopping, entertainment (including a movie theater), restaurants, community events, art and
music, and charitable events in a safe and aesthetically appealing environment.
6. The project would facilitate a planned development consisting of national retailers and related in -line
commercial and entertainment tenants consistent with current and future market demands in an area
that is currently underserved and projected for substantial future residential growth.
7. Construction and operation of the project would generate approximately 1,000 construction related
jobs and 2,000 retail related jobs within the City of Bakersfield (Source: Woodmom Company).
8. The project would stimulate economic growth by generating $245,000,000 in gross local sales per
year (Source: Woodmont Company). Based on these estimated gross sales, it is estimated the City
would receive an additional $1.8 million in sales tax revenue per year. The hotel use and proposed
240 hotel rooms would yield approximately $600,000 per year and generate approximately $72,000 in
revenue from the City's transient lodging tax.
Section 15093 2 October 2015
SR 99/110sking Commercial Centcr Project
9. Construction of the project would result in property with an estimated sale value ranging from
$80,000,000 to $90,000,000 (based on $100 per square foot construction costs) and would provide
benefits from related property taxes. The project could possibly bring in $800,000 to $900,000 in
additional property tax revenue, which would go to the City and other local public agencies.
10. The project would create a walkable environment and would provide facilities to accommodate
bicycle traffic.
11. The project would incorporate energy and water conservation features that would assist in
implementing the City of Bakersfiield's conservation policies.
Section 15093 3 Odober 2015
SR 99/Hosking Commercial Center Project
This page intentionally left blank
Section 15093 4 October 2015
SR 99/Hwking Commercial Center Project