The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 190-16RESOLUTION NO. 190-16 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN, LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BRIMHALL ROAD, GENERALLY EAST AND WEST OF COFFEE ROAD, BEING WITHIN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. (GPA /ZC 16- 0204). WHEREAS, Trammell Crow Company, Karen Shorr representing Coffee - Brimhall, LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department requesting an amendment to the land use map designations of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 12.64 acres, from LR to HR (High Density Residential) on 0.81 acres, from LR to HR on 15.91 acres, from LR to OS -P (Open Space - Parks) on 2.67 acres, from MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) to OS -P on 6.5 acres, from HMR to OS -P on 0.75 acres, and GC (General Commercial) to LI (Light Industrial) on 20.75 acres, located along the north side of Brimhall Road, generally east and west of Coffee Road (the 'Project'); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on THURSDAY, September 1, 2016, on General Plan Amendment 16 -0204 for the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, notice of the time and place of public hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, for the above described project, an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and it was determined that the proposed Project would not have more significant impacts to the environment and therefore, an Addendum to the EIR for the project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the applicant for the property owner has indicated the purpose of the request is for the development of a total of 1,062 dwelling units, approximately 10 acres of public parks, a 130 room hotel, a 200 -bed hospital, 300,000 square feet of light industrial uses, 351,360 square feet of retail uses and 470,000 square feet of office uses; and WHEREAS, the project site is surrounded by existing and approved urban development projects in process; and WHEREAS, adjacent urban development projects as well as this project have extended or will extend supporting utilities and infrastructure to the property; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and concurs with the following findings made by the Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. 43 -16, adopted on September 1, 2016: o�epkF9.� s U O ORIGINAL 1. The laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Reports as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and 2. All required notices have been given; and 3. The provisions of CEQA have been followed; and 4. An Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA and is appropriate for the Project; and 5. The amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as shown in the attached Exhibit 3 is compatible with the land use designations of surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED as follows: 1 . The above recitals and findings incorporated herein by reference are true and correct and constitute the Findings of the City Council in this matter. 2. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council, is hereby received, accepted and approved. 3. That General Plan Amendment No. 16 -0204 to the Land Use Element is hereby approved as recommended by the Planning Commission and shown on the Location Map in Exhibit 2 and General Plan Amendment Map in Exhibit 3, subject to the Conditions of Approval for the project as shown in Exhibit 1, Revised 15091 Findings & 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations found in Exhibit 4 and Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program as shown in Exhibit 5. 4. That the infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types of density and intensity of the development. 5. That General Plan Amendment No. 16 -0204, approved herein, be combined with other approved General Plan Amendment cases in this some cycle described in separate resolutions, to form a single Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. -------- 000........ Page 2 of 3 O�epKf9'r'T > m f- U � ORIGINAL HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted byy the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on NOY 1 6 2016 , 2016 by the following vote: AYE$: N: AB BSE!N COUNCILMEMBER NLY�o. COUNCILMEMBER PC, 'I, NN. ROBERTA GAFFORD, CWd CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield NOY 16 2016 APPROVED HARVEY L. HALL MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: VIRGINIA GENNARO City AttorneyJ By. v (zi. Exhibits (attached): Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval Exhibit 2. Location Map Exhibit 3. General Plan Amendment Map Exhibit 4. Revised 15091 Findings & 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit 5. Revised Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program MO- S: \GPAs \GPA 4th 2016\ 160 204 Bakersfeld Commons\Ord_Res\RES CC GPA.docx Page 3 of 3 pFeAK`�9ss U O ^g1GINAL Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval o`eAKF9r s � m ti ORIGINAL Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval General Plan Amendment / Zone Change 16 -0204 Bakersfield Commons Project 1. The applicant /developer shall comply with all Mitigation Measures found in Table 1 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Addendum to the Final EIR. 2. The applicant shall appoint a project manager to act as a liaison with city staff and track (monitor) all conditions of approval /mitigation measures. The manager shall provide written evidence and documentation confirming the satisfactory completion and /or compliance with the list of conditions, including mitigation measures of the project. The project manager shall submit the entire list of conditions with said evidence /documentation and status of each condition with each subsequent development application and /or plans submitted to the Community Development Department- Planning Division and Public Works Department. The project manager shall coordinate with city departments and other agencies as needed to satisfy conditions /mitigation measures, and document compliance. Documentation from the project manager as to the compliance of the condition /mitigation measures are subject to review and acceptance by the Planning Director, or his /her designee. The name and contact information for the project manager shall be provided to the city staff on all submittals. Planning Conditions 3. With submittal of any subdivision on the project site, access to minerals must satisfy Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) 16.20.060 as part of the subdivision map. 4. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed in adherence to Chapter 17.71.030, General Standards, of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC), which requires that exterior lighting originating on a property be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot- candles measured 3 feet above ground at the property line. Public Works Conditions 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, approval of improvement plans, or concurrently with any application for a lot line adjustment or parcel merger, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall submit evidence of completion the following: (If a tentative subdivision map over the entire GPA /ZC area Is submitted, than these conditions can be met with the map): a. Provide fully executed dedication for Coffee Road, Brimhall Road, El Toro Viejo Road, Elzworth Street, Windsong Street, and Coffee Frontage Road to arterial /collector or local standards for the full frontage of the area within the GPA request. Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and addition additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Submit a current title report with the dedication documents. 04 , NK4 'l -� > m U � ORIGINAL Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval GPA /ZC 16 -0204 b. This General Plan Amendment /Zone Change (GPA /ZC) area is too small to support its own storm drainage sump. The City will allow no more than one sump per 80 acres; therefore, this GPA /ZC area must be included within the drainage area of adjoining property. Submit a comprehensive drainage study of the entire drainage area, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The study shall show the development's proportionate share of the necessary ultimate storm drainage facilities. The developer shall participate in the development of a Planned Drainage Area, or shall provide some other method for the construction of the ultimate facilities satisfactory to the City Engineer. c. Sewer service must be provided to the GPA /ZC area. The developer shall be responsible for the initial extension of the sewer line to serve the property. This sewer line must be sized to serve a much larger area than the project area. The City is willing to aid the developer in the formation of a Planned Sewer Area and /or an Assessment District to provide a mechanism for the reimbursement of oversizing costs to the developer. Sewer facilities in private streets and on private property will be privately owned and maintained. d. The project applicant shall provide the City of Bakersfield with a phasing plan of the onsite and required offsite roadway improvements to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. e. Developer is responsible for the construction of all infrastructure, both public and private, within the boundary of the GPA /ZC area. This includes the construction of any and all boundary streets to the centerline of the street, unless otherwise specified. The developer is also responsible for the construction of any off site infrastructure required to support this development, as identified in these conditions. The phasing of the construction of all infrastructure will be addressed at the subdivision map stage. 6. The entire area covered by this General Plan Amendment (GPA) shall be included in the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application for a lot line adjustment for any portion of this GPA area. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including the Proposition 218 ballot and the Covenant. The ballot and covenant shall be signed and notarized. 7. Prior to recordation of any map or approval of any improvement plan for the GPA /ZC area, payment of the proportionate share of the cost of the median for the arterial frontage (Coffee Road) of the property within the GPA /ZC request is required. 8. Per Resolution 035 -13, the area within the GPA /ZC shall implement and comply with the ..complete streets" policy. 9. Prior to issuance of each building permit for the project, the project proponent shad the applicable Regional Traffic Impact Fee. Page 2 of 5 o U ORIGINAL Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval GPA /ZC 16 -0204 Traffic Conditions We have reviewed the traffic study dated August 5, 2016 prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers for approximately 1,500,000 square feet of commercial and residential development, and it appears to be adequate. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases where Phase I is anticipated to be completed by 2020, Phase II will be completed by 2025, and full build -out will occur by the year2035. Based upon the traffic study the mitigation measures listed below would be appropriate: 10. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, for any part of the phase I project, the following must be completed. The project is responsible for 100% of the improvements including right of way acquisition: b. Install raised median on Brimhall Road from Windsong Road to Coffee Road to City standards to allow full access at only signalized locations. c. Coffee Road at Brimhall intersection, add one southbound through lane, to provide four through lanes, one left -turn lane and one right -Turn lane. The added southbound through lane shall continue to the Westside Parkway eastbound on ramp. A dedicated right turn lane in to the existing Westside Parkway westbound on ramp shall be maintained unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. d. Coffee Road at Brimhall intersection, add a westbound right -turn lane to provide two right -turn lanes, one through lane, one shared left /through lane, and one left- turn lane. Design options will be considered by the City Public Works Director. e. Construct a continuous right turn lane along the project frontage on Brimhall Road from Coffee Road to Windsong Road. 11. Pay the proportionate share of the mitigation measures not paid for by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee nor included with normal development improvements. The intersection mitigation required is identified in Table 8 and the roadway segments in Table 9 in the traffic study and the proportionate share is as follows: b. Calloway Dr. & Brimhall Rd., add 1 WBR (striping only), 50.21 %. c. Old River Rd. & Camino Media, 1 WBR (striping only), 14.09 %. d. Calloway Dr.: Brimhall Rd. to Holland Rd, Add 2 lanes (striping only), 22.79% 12. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the project proponent shall construct El Toro Viejo Road from Brimhall Road to Commons Boulevard to collector standards. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building located within the area denoted as Phase 2 on GPA /ZC 16 -0204, the project proponent shall complete construction of El Toro Viejo Road, to collector standards, from Commons Boulevard to a point south of the BNSF Railroad as approved by the Public works Director, and pay an in lieu fee for the remainder of El Toro Viejo, up to the BNSF Railroad. A grade separation is planned for the crossing of the BNSF Railroad,6%xb�9 s, Page 3 of 5 m u � ORIGINAL Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval GPA /ZC 16 -0204 Toro Viejo Road. Slope easements shall be required with the submittal of any development plans within 1000' of the El Toro Viejo /BNSF Railroad crossing. 13. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up -front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.. 14. A full access opening will only be considered if the developer funds and installs a traffic signal at the site entrance. Said signal will only be permitted if a signal synchronization study is submitted and approved, which shows progression is not adversely affected. In accordance with City Council Resolution 161 -94, a Traffic Signal Maintenance District shall be established for the maintenance and operation of the proposed "convenience" signal. Traffic signal interconnect conduit is required along the entire frontage of Brimhall Road and fiber communication conductor shall be connected to the existing signals at Brimhall Road /Coffee Road, Brimhall Road /Harvest Creek, and Brimhall Road /Windsong. North of River Recreation and Parks District Conditions 15. Prior to recordation of any final map on the GPA /ZC site, the subdivider /developer shall dedicate land with free and clear title (except for any existing mineral rights of record) to North of the River Recreation and Park District based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population in accordance with chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC). If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Prior to recordation of a final map on the GPA /ZC site, the subdivider /developer shall enter into an agreement with North of the river recreation and Park District to implement and satisfy this condition. This GPA /ZC site is located within the boundaries of North of the River Recreation and Park District. EMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to dedicate park land, pay an in -lieu fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in order to satisfy the City's park land ordinance for North of the River Recreation and Park District. Staff is recommending this condition in accordance with 8MC Chapter 15.80. 16. Prior to recordation of any final map on the GPA /ZC site, the subdivider /developer shall record a covenant on the property disclosing the requirement to dedicate /reserve /pay in lieu fees for a public park pursuant to a park agreement with the North of the River Recreation and Park District. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the North of the River Recreation & Park District prior to recordation. 17. Prior to recordation of a final map on the GPA /ZC site, the subdivider /developer shall provide to the Community Development Department - Planning Division, written proof /verification from North of the River Recreation and Park District that said project is within the NOR Park Maintenance District. 18. Prior to recordation of a final map adjacent to any park within the GPA /ZC area, the subdivider shall be responsible for improving streets adjacent to the park site to City'Afq Page 4 of 5 > m � ro Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval GPA /ZC 16 -0204 Bakersfield standards. For orderly development. City Attorney Condition 19. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and /or property owner and /or subdivider ( "Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ( "City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for City's sole active negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued. The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in ] its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party. 5: \5PAS \GPA4th W16 \I6 M4 Bakeffeld Commons \Ortl Res \F bi11 ContlBlan_Mltaocx pF0PKF9'�.., m Page 5 of 5 0 ° ORIGINAL Exhibit 2. Location Map o�0pK�9`�r > m F- U O nRIGINAL 1 ME \ o``0AKF9.,� s � m U O ORIGINAL Exhibit 3. General Plan Amendment Map �gAKF9 o sT ORIGINAL oa �4 s' Pa p 3 ig i £3 SC S33 Ep 4YY oEE gel jr.._.. .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..� U ' 00 LL U t* 7 COW E'O g U f, N O� w O U E � u tt F J i _ = O rc aaoram It u ~ .. I x 0 0 = rc ._._._._. J _.._ U _ O O ¢ ua vM i .rc wa j j G V LL s 1 ` N Q„Y 9m u, v i f= 5 5 I Oa i LL� U _ p Ey r) AL Exhibit 4. Revised 15091 Findings & 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations pF�AKF9'1.e. t m J � ORIGINAL Findings of Fact in Support of Approval of the Addendum to Previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) SCH # 2007041043 For Bakersfield Commons Project General Plan Amendment / Zone Change No. 16 -0204 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0219 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0220 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0221 Planned Unit Development No. 16 -0222 Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 6617 Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield Community Development Department - Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 -5210 Jacquelyn Kitchen, Planning Director Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Paul Johnson, Principal Planner Jennie Eng, Principal Planner B A K E R S F I E L D . Bekers vclyw September 1, 2016 �gAK4 o 1% � ffT H U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 INTRODUCTION As Lead Agency, the City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Community Development Department prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bakersfield Commons Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project ") which evaluated general plan amendment (GPA) and zone change (ZC) approvals for a mixed -use Project containing approximately 1,400,000 square feet of retail commercial use, 600,000 square feet of office commercial use, 345 multi - family dwelling units, and 80 single - family homes. The Approved Project also included four acres of park and open space within the proposed residential areas, and approximately two acres of trails and paseos throughout the Project site. The City of Bakersfield City Council certified the Bakersfield Commons Project EIR (referred to herein as the "Certified EIR" or "EIR," State Clearinghouse No. 2007041043) and approved the Bakersfield Commons Project on August 11, 2010, consisting of General Plan Amendment (GPA) /Zone Change (ZC) No. 06 -1877. In connection with certifying the EIR, the City Council adopted Findings of Fact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, which are incorporated herein by reference. On September 15, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6617 as part of the original approvals for the Approved Project. Modifications are now being proposed to the Approved Project, which include applications for GPA, ZC, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review, Planned Commercial Development (PCD) Review, and a Revised Tentative Tract Map. The proposed changes to the Approved Project, as described below, are referred to herein as the "Proposed Project." As Lead Agency, the City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Community Development Department prepared an Addendum to the Certified EIR to determine whether the Proposed Project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR, or any of the other conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. CEQA Authority for an Addendum The Addendum to the Certified EIR addresses the proposed changes to the Approved Project. The Certified EIR included all statutory sections required by CEQA, comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and supporting technical appendices. CEQA establishes the type of environmental documentation required when changes to a project occur after an EIR is certified. Specifically, Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines' requires a Subsequent EIR when a mitigated negative declaration has already been adopted or an EIR has been certified and one or more of the following circumstances exist: 'CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 sets forth similar requirements for preparation ofa supplemental EIR. gAK(;,fl O� ST Bokersfiefd Commons Project Pagel '^ U O CEQA 15091 Findings of Fact ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Likewise, California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 states that unless one or more of the following events occur, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency: • Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; • Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or • New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location The 258 -acre Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield (City), Kern County, California. The site is east and west of Coffee Road between Brimhall Road and Rosedale Highway. Regional access to the Project site is provided okgpkF9s,. Bakersfield Commons Project Paget m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations p o ORIGINAL City of Bokerstieltl September 1 2016 via State Route 99 (SR -99) and State Highway 58 (Rosedale Highway), located approximately 2.4 miles to the east and 0.5 mile to the north, respectively. The Project site can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute Gosford topographic quadrangle map Township 29 South, Range 27 East, Mt. Diablo Base (MDB) and Meridian in the southern half of Section 29 and the western half of Section 28, as well as the Oildole topographic quadrangle map Township 29 South, Range 27 East, MDB and Meridian in the western half of Section 28. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) for the Project site are 368 -020 -30, 32, 33, 34, and 35; 368- 040 -01, 02, 12, and 13; and 368 - 070-01 and 02. Access to the Project site is provided primarily via Coffee Road (an arterial alignment), which bisects the property, and Brimhall Road (a collector alignment) along the Project's south boundary. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway is adjacent to the northern boundary of the western portion of the Project site and bisects the eastern portion of the site. The Kern River is located approximately one half mile south of the Project site. Approximately 200 feet of the Project site is bordered on the west by unincorporated Kern County land. The Project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the City. Approved Project The Approved Project, consisted of construction and operation of a mixed -use development of up to 1,400,000 square feet of retail commercial use (including a theater), and 600,000 square feet of office commercial use on the Project site. In addition, the Approved Project included the development of a total of 425 residential units consisting of 80 single - family detached units and 345 multi - family units. The Approved Project also included four acres of park and open space within the proposed residential areas, and approximately two acres of trails and poseos throughout the Project site. When approved in 2010, the Approved Project was intended to be developed in three phases, starting in 2012, with ultimate buildout in 2035. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would include up to a total of 345,360 square feet of retail use (including a 187,690 square -foot lifestyle center, 43,670 - square -foot / 1,200 -seat theater, 48,500- square -foot destination recreation facility, and 65,500 square feet of flex retail), up to 470,000 square feet of general and medical office use, up to 300,000 square feet of light industrial use, a 200 -bed hospital, a 130 -room hotel, up to 1,062 residential units (including 17 single - family units, 865 multi - family units, and 180 senior housing units), and 9,2 acres of public parks. "Flex retail" uses are located within office buildings and retail areas throughout the site, as permitted by the Zone District. As proposed, the Project will facilitate a mix of complementary uses, as permitted within the use type, as listed in Table 1.1 of the Addendum. The Proposed Project's mix of uses would incorporate connectivity and walkability, integrating residential, health /wellness, and employment centers around a "lifestyle" retail center that would be centrally located within the development. Park and recreation facilities would also be provided within the development to serve the needs of local residents, as well as regional demand. The proposed site plan design is intended to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational and civic interaction within the community. The required discretionary land use entitlements associated with the Proposed Project include applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC); a Bokerstieltl Commons Project Page d CEaA Fintlings of Fact ono Statement of Overrttling Considerations o``ePkf9`I.� > m � Qr U ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM); one (1) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application; and three (3) Planned Commercial Development (PCD) Applications. The applications are detailed in Table 2.2, Proposed Entitlements, of the Addendum. IV. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following is a comparison of the environmental impacts of the Approved Project and the Proposed Project. As set forth in the Addendum and summarized below. The Proposed Project's environmental impacts are the some as, similar to, or less than the Approved Project's. A. Land Use and Planning a. Consistency with Regional Plans Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would be consistent with all applicable regional land use plans, and found impacts to be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be consistent with such plans. Impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Consistency with Loco/ Plans Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project, after approval of the proposed GPA, would be consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Pion (MBGP), City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance) and related development regulations. The Certified EIR found the Approved Project's impacts to be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project, after approval of the proposed GPA and ZC, would be consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies of the MBGP, City of Bakersfield Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and related development regulations. Impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. C. Land Use Compatibility Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, with the implementation of the Approved Project's design standards, which would limit the Approved Project's heights, setbacks, etc., the Approved Project would be compatible with existing off -site land uses. The Certified EIR also found that the Approved Project would not result in the division, disruption or isolation of an existing established community or neighborhood. The Certified EIR found o�OpKFgS� > m Bakersfield Commons Protect Page 5 � p CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 the Approved Project's impacts regarding land use compatibility to be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be compatible with existing off -site land uses and would not result in the division, disruption or isolation of an existing established community or neighborhood. Impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project and future residential and commercial development associated with the related projects would support opportunities for revitalization and managed growth as encouraged by the MBGP goals and objectives. Such development would be consistent with Kern Council of Governments policies, and other regional policies for promoting housing options and urban centers which capitalize on the area's setting and location as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not combine with any of the related projects to create a cumulatively significant land use impact, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, Proposed Project and future residential and commercial development associated with the related projects would support opportunities for revitalization and managed growth as encouraged by the MBGP goals and objectives. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not combine with any of the related projects to create a cumulatively significant land use impact and cumulative impacts would continue to be less than significant. B. Urban Decay Approved Project The Certified EIR found that there was sufficient market demand to support development of the Approved Project's retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses, along with existing retail developments and other future, proposed projects, without creating competitive conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the City's existing retail base. Accordingly, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project's impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Based on an updated urban decay study, the Addendum found that there is unmet, or excess, demand for goods and services in the categories represented by the Proposed Project lifestyle center. The Proposed Project would satisfy this unmet demand, and not divert substantial sales from existing business, thereby causing a potential for urban blight and decay elsewhere in the City. Similarly, the urban decay analysis demonstrates that there is existing market potential to develop a movie theater with ogNK4 eokersfield Commons Prgect Page 6 = o CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemding Considerations ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 1,500 to 2,500 seats without causing substantial diversion of sales elsewhere in the City. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a potential to cause urban decay or visual deterioration within the greater Bakersfield area. The Proposed Project's impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, based on analyses of the likely growth in demand for retail facilities in Bakersfield and Kern County and the detailed impact of the specific retail and other component uses at the Proposed Project and similar related projects, growth in market demand in the relevant market areas would be sufficiently strong to support the proposed retail, restaurant and entertainment space at the Approved Project along with existing retail developments and other proposed projects without creating competitive conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the existing retail base. Accordingly, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not combine with any of the related projects to create a cumulatively significant urban decay impact and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the updated urban decay analysis in the Addendum found that growth in market demand in the relevant market areas is sufficiently strong to support the proposed retail, restaurant and entertainment space at the Approved Project along with existing retail developments and other proposed projects without creating competitive conditions that would likely lead to urban decay of the existing retail base. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not combine with any of the related projects to create a cumulatively significant urban decay impact and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. C. Transportation and Traffic a. Intersection Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, upon completion of Phase I, the Approved Project would generate a total of (i) approximately 27,267 daily trips, including 733 morning peak hour trips and 2,670 afternoon peak hour trips under Phase I conditions, (ii) approximately 39,489 daily trips, including 1,222 morning peak hour trips and 3,981 afternoon peak hour trips under Full Buildout- Phases I & 11 conditions, and (N)approximately 44,461 daily trips, including 1,744 morning peak hour trips and 4,539 afternoon peak hour trips under Full Buildout - Phases I, 11, & III conditions. The Certified EIR found that, before mitigation, the Approved Project would result in significant impacts at 12 intersections under Phase I conditions, 13 intersections under Phases I & II conditions, and 16 intersections under Phases I, II & III conditions. With mitigation, all of these significant intersection impacts would be reduced to less than significant. 0pKF9 Bakerstieltl Commons Project Page 7a S'^ CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations a U � ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 Proposed Project Based on a new Traffic Impact Study, the Addendum found that upon completion of Phase I, the Proposed Project would generate (i)13,4O0 daily trips, including 688 morning peak hour trips and 1,237 afternoon peak hour trips under Phase I conditions, (ii) 25,656 daily trips, including 1,755 morning peak hour trips and 2,479 afternoon peak hour trips under Full Buildout - Phases I & II conditions, and (iii) 31,720 daily trips, including 2,045 morning peak hour trips and 3,025 afternoon peak hour trips under Full Buildout - Phases I, 11, & III conditions. The Addendum found that before mitigation, the Proposed Project would result in significant impacts at one intersection under Phase I conditions, two intersections under Phases I & It conditions, and one intersection under Phases I, II & III conditions. With mitigation, each of these significant intersection impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the intersection impacts of the Proposed Project would be reduced as compared to the Approved Project and also less than significant after mitigation. b. Street Segment and Freeway Segment Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that before mitigation the Approved Project would result in significant impacts at seven (7) roadway segments under Phase I conditions, nine (9) roadway segments under Phases I & II conditions, and 10 roadway segments under Phases 1, 11 & III conditions. Mitigation would reduce some, but not all of these significant roadway segment impacts. Even with mitigation, the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts at four (4) roadway segments under Phase I conditions, six (6) roadway segments under Phases I & 11 conditions, and seven (7) roadway segments under Phases 1, 11 & III conditions. Proposed Project The Addendum found that before mitigation the Approved Project would result in significant impacts at five (5) roadway segments under Phase I conditions, zero (0) roadway segments under Phases I & II conditions, and four (4) roadway segments under Phases I, II & III conditions. With mitigation, each of these significant roadway segment impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the roadway segment impacts of the Proposed Project would be reduced as compared to the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project would avoid the Approved Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Construction Approved Project The Certified EIR found that daily on -site manpower during construction would be 165 workers during the average quarter (Phase I), which would rise to about 305 workers during the peak quarter (Phase II). Assuming that 25 percent of the construction employees would enter or leave the Project Site during the peak hours, this would translate to 42 daily trips in the average quarter and 77 daily trips in the peak quarter during the peak commute periods. The Certified EIR found that this level of added Bakersfield Commons Project CEQA 15091 Finings of Fact Page D�0PKF9.� s m j o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 traffic would not adversely affect street operations or significant limit emergency access, and impacts of the Approved Project would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Addendum found that construction activity and employment associated with the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project since the Proposed Project would employ the same construction methods on the same Project site as the Approved Project, and would result in similar levels of development. Therefore, the Proposed Project's construction traffic impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. d. Hazards, Emergency Access, Parking, and Alternative Transportation Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would provide adequate parking in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and would serve to promote alternative transportation on -site. The site plan for the Approved Project provided access and internal design capacity as required for emergency services, per City standards. The Approved Project would not interfere with emergency access and would not result in hazards due to design features. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would provide adequate parking in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and would serve to promote alternative transportation on -site. The site plan for the Proposed Project would continue to include new roadways that would be designed in accordance with City standards with respect to access and internal roadway design capacity; the Proposed Project would not interfere with emergency access and would not result in hazards due to design features. Therefore, the Proposed Project's impacts would be similar the Approved Project's and also less than significant. e. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Approved Project The Certified EIR identified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the Proposed Project's transportation and traffic impact to less than significant. However, in the event that the regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts of the Approved could remain. Moreover, if implementation of such improvements is delayed, temporary significant impacts could occur. Similarly, if sufficient right -of -way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. 'gAKEy�T m o Bakersfield Commons Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 Proposed Project The Addendum identifies feasible mitigation measures that would reduce all of the Proposed Project's transportation and traffic impact to less than significant. However, similar to the Approved Project, in the event that the regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Moreover, as under the Approved Project, if implementation of such improvements is delayed, temporary significant impacts could occur. Similarly, if sufficient right -of -way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain, similar to the Approved Project. As noted, because the Proposed Project would generate significantly less traffic, it would result in fewer impacts prior to mitigation. Therefore, if the Proposed Project's mitigation measures are not implemented or are delayed, there would not be a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact set forth the Certified EIR. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the analysis of traffic impacts of the Approved Project considered the effects of future growth in traffic within the region through consideration of traffic generated by future traffic growth and intersection, street segments, and freeway segments operating conditions that are forecasted as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Project site by year 2015 and 2035. Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth were incorporated into the traffic analysis and therefore reflected in the Future without and with Project conditions presented above. The Certified EIR found that the City and emergency services would be notified of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes, and detours due to construction activities of the Approved Project or related projects. Thus, construction activities attributable to the related projects, in conjunction with the Approved Project, are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access, and the impact on the transportation system from construction activities would be temporary in nature and impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the analysis of traffic impacts of the Proposed Project considered the effects of future growth in traffic within the region through consideration of traffic generated by future traffic growth and intersection, street segments, and freeway segments operating conditions that are forecasted as a result of regional growth and related projects in the vicinity of the Project site for the Proposed Project phases of 2020, 2025, and 2035. Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth were Bakersfield Commons Protect Page It CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 incorporated into the traffic analysis and, therefore, reflected in the Future without and with Project conditions presented above. Because the Proposed Project would avoid the Approved Project's significant and unavoidable roadway segment impacts, the Proposed Project's cumulative traffic impacts would be less than the Approved Project's and less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, under the Proposed Project and related projects, the City and emergency services would be notified of any planned road closures or restrictions on any roadways, alternative emergency routes, and detours due to construction activities of the Proposed Project or related projects. Thus, construction activities attributable to the related projects, in conjunction with the Proposed Project, are not expected to cause a sufficient disruption to roadway capacity to result in a limitation to emergency access, and the impact on the transportation system from construction activities would be temporary in nature and impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project's cumulative construction traffic impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. D. Aesthetics a. Visual Character Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would serve as a major visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area in accordance with important policy directions set by the MBGP, namely those that promote the establishment of new centers, differentiated by functional activity, density /intensity, and physical character, as the principal focus of development and activity in the City. In addition, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would be physically and functionally compatible with existing off -site uses, recognizing building heights, landscaping, artificial lighting), and other design elements that would make the Approved Project compatible with off -site commercial and residential development. As such, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would upgrade the existing visual character of the site, and visual character /quality impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would provide a visual focal point that would add greater definition to the aesthetic identity of the area in accordance with important policy directions set by the MBGP, namely those that promote the establishment of new centers, differentiated by functional activity, density /intensity, and physical character, as the principal focus of development and activity in the City. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would upgrade the existing visual character of the site, and the Proposed Project's visual character /quality impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. epKF9 Bakersb o`` P eld Commons Project Page 11 CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations = o U ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 7 2016 b. Light and Glare Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would incorporate a comprehensive lighting program into its design features to regulate lighting levels, heights of light standards in the different areas of the Project site, energy efficiency and color of the various lamps following carefully designed principles and design guidelines. All lighting would meet the Bakersfield Municipal Code requirements. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not result in a substantial increase in light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Project area, and light and glare impacts of the Approved Project would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, Proposed Project lighting would be designed to be compatible with surrounding development; directed onto the driveways, walkways and parking; and shielded away from adjacent properties and public rights -of -way, which would minimize spillage of the illumination into the surrounding areas and public rights - of -way, and minimize glare or interference with vehicular traffic, and the Proposed Project's impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. The Proposed Project would also include a new source of lighting that was not part of the Approved Project, consisting of lighting associated with the recreational playing fields at the proposed park facility, and at the proposed recreational retail use. Similar to the other lighting included in the Approved Project, this lighting would also be subject to Chapter 17.71.030, General Standards, of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, which requires that exterior lighting originating on a property be limited to a maximum of 0.5 footcandles measured three feet above ground at the property line. This requirement would limit light trespass from this lighting source, and impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, like the Approved Project, the related projects' site plans would be subject to the City's design review procedures to ensure consistency with the City's ordinances, policies, and standards related to architectural design, building heights, setback, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among others. Given the City's design reviews, sufficient consideration would be integrated into the related projects' approval process that would preclude adverse impacts with regard to visual character and light and glare. As the Approved Project would have less than significant impacts to visual character and light and glare, the Certified EIR found that the additional changes brought about by the related projects in conjunction with the Approved Project would yield less than significant cumulative impacts. Proposed Project Similar to the Proposed Project the related projects' site plans would be subject to the City's design review procedures to ensure consistency with the City's ordinances, o�OpKFq.., s Bakersfield Commons Project Page 12 m CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations v o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 policies, and standards related to architectural design, building heights, setback, lighting, and landscape and streetscape, among others. Similar to the Approved Project, the cumulative impacts to the visual environment under the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project and also less than significant. E. Geology Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active or potentially active faults cross or are located on the Project site. The Certified EIR found that, because the Project applicant would be required to design and construct the Project in conformance with City Ordinances and the seismic design requirements of applicable building codes, the potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage during an earthquake event would be reduced. The Certified EIR found that, based on the potential for ground shaking, anticipated soils, anticipated depths to groundwater, and other conditions at the Project site, the potential for liquefaction, subsidence, dynamic compaction, slope stability, expansive soil and associated settlement or bearing loss would be low. However, the Certified EIR found that, if Project soils conditions are not as anticipated, there is a potential for significant impacts associated with liquefaction and dynamic compaction. Accordingly, the Certified EIR identified mitigation to reduce this potential impact less than significant. Furthermore, the Certified EIR found that the potential for soil erosion during the operation of the Approved Project would be relatively low due to the fact that the Project site would be almost entirely paved over and /or landscaped, and that all grading activities would require grading permits, which would include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels. Accordingly, the Certified EIR found that the impacts of the Approved Project related to soil erosion would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would be located on the same Project site as the Approved Project, and would be subject to the some site conditions as identified in the Certified EIR. Accordingly, impacts associated with Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, ground shaking, subsidence, dynamic compaction, expansive soil and associated settlement or bearing loss would be less than significant, some as the Approved Project. Also some as the Approved Project, potentially significant impacts related to liquefaction and dynamic compaction would be mitigated to less than significant by implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. Because the Proposed Project would involve similar construction activity, and would result in similar levels of pavement and landscaping following construction, as the Approved Project, the potential for soil erosion under the Proposed Project would be the same as the Approved Project's and less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, implementation of future development of the site and surrounding areas could expose more persons and property to potential impacts due to �gAKF9 s� Bakersfield Commons Project Page l.'t m CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations p or ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 seismic activity. Seismic and geologic significance would be considered on a project - by- project basis. The impacts would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soil impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, impacts of the Proposed Project in conjunction with related projects could expose more persons and property to potential impacts due to seismic activity. However, such development would be considered on a project -by- project basis. The impacts would be specific to that site and its users and would not be common or contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soil impacts of the Proposed Project would be same as the Approved Project and also less than significant. F. Hydrology and Water Quality a. Surface Water Qualify and Hydrology Approved Project The Certified EIR found that this increase in impervious surface under the Approved Project would substantially increase the total amount of surface water runoff generated at the Project site. To address this change in on -site conditions, the Approved Project's design included four proposed retention facilities that would collect and store all Project runoff resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces. Additional design features in the Approved Project, including water quality facilities that would filter drainage along landscaped bio- swales and retention features that would also retain surface water runoff and allow it to infiltrate to groundwater. The Certified EIR found that the Project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. The Certified EIR found that a small portion of the Project site, at the northwest corner of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, is within the 500 - year flood zone designation. Since no housing is proposed within this zone or area, the Certified EIR found that impacts of the Approved Project related to flooding would be less than significant. The Project site is also located within the Isabella Dam inundation area. In the event of dam failure, serious flooding on site would not occur until approximately six to eight hours after dam failure. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure E -2 (Geology and Soils), in addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police and Fire Departments in cooperation with other City and County Departments for the protection of life and property, the Certified EIR found that the Approved 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 dam, and impacts of the Approved Project would be less than significant. oF�AKF9 -� s Bakersfield Commons Project r Page 14t CEGA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding erriding Considerations �IRIGINA City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 Runoff during construction and operation of the Approved Project has the potential to contribute sediment and roadway contaminants (e.g., oil) to surface water. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and municipal requirements for controlling pollutant impacts to stormwater and urban runoff from construction and operation activities, and, with incorporation of Project design features, Approved Project impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would be developed in multiple phases as identified in future PUD /PCD areas. Wherever possible, these PUD /PCDs would have separate retention systems sized to handle the required flows. In several instances flows would need to be routed to other PUD /PCD areas in order to achieve the required retention volumes. Catch basins and storm drain pipes would be used to route storm water to retention areas. Based on an updated drainage study, the Addendum concluded that the Proposed Project would be able to meet the storm water requirements set forth in City regulations. Impacts under the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. The Proposed Project would be developed on the same Project site as the Approved Project. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not place housing within the 500 -year flood zone designation on the Project Site. Therefore, impacts of the Proposed Project related to flooding would be the same as the Approved Project's and also less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure E -2 (Geology and Soils), in addition to the flood evacuation plan developed by the City of Bakersfield Police Department for the protection of life and property, 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 dam, and impacts of the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project's and also be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, runoff during construction and operation of the Proposed Project has the potential to contribute sediment and roadway contaminants (e.g. oil) to surface water. The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and municipal requirements for controlling pollutant impacts to stormwater and urban runoff from construction and operation activities, and, with incorporation of Project design features, the Proposed Project's impacts to surface water quality would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Groundwater Quality and Hydrology Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, with implementation of the Approved Project, including Project design features, the amount of water infiltrating into the groundwater system would be similar in volume to current conditions, and impacts related to groundwater hydrology would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that construction and operation of the Approved Project would have the potential to impact groundwater 8NKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project Pa e 15 8 ST g > CEQA Findings nings of Fact and Statement of Oveoiding Considerations U � ^'GMIAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 quality if polluted surface water is allowed to infiltrate into the groundwater system untreated, but that Project design features, including treatment and testing of runoff in underground retention structures, would reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition, the Certified EIR found that remediation equipment located on the six -acre portion of the Project site east of Coffee Road and south of the BNSF Railway could be relocated or modified, as necessary, with oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) when development on that portion of the Project site occurs. The Certified EIR found that, if necessary to accommodate proposed development, equipment associated with remediation could be decommissioned and reinstalled as needed in accordance with all applicable regulations and in coordination with the RWQCB. The Certified EIR also found that, if necessary, existing oil and water wells would be abandoned pursuant to applicable State and local guidelines, and would result in less than significant impacts to groundwater quality. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts to groundwater. The Certified EIR further found that mitigation measures would further reduce the less than significant impacts. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, with implementation of Project design features, including the drainage system evaluated in the drainage report, the amount of water infiltrating into the groundwater system would be similar in volume to current conditions, and impacts of the Proposed Project related to groundwater hydrology would be similar to the Approved Project and also less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, Project design features, including treatment and testing of runoff in retention structures, would minimize the potential for polluted surface runoff to percolate to groundwater, and potential impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, existing remediation equipment (further discussed in Section G, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, below), and oil and gas wells could be removed or relocated, if necessary to accommodate Proposed Project development. The Proposed Project impacts to groundwater quality would be the some as under the Approved Project and also less than significant impact. Mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR to further reduce the less than significant impacts would continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that each related project, as part of its design, must include storm water drainage systems to capture and discharge waters from each respective site. Thus, the majority of the related projects in the area would transmit storm water into retention /detention facilities that would be developed as part of the respective projects. Storm water facilities would then allow percolation of water back into groundwater aquifers, reducing the impact of increased impervious surfaces. Therefore, cumulative impacts to groundwater quantity and storm water transmission would be less than significant. Additionally, the Certified EIR found that the related projects would comply with the stringent requirements of the CWA, which are implemented by the City and Kern County through the SUSMP and other statewide NPDES requirements. The Certified EIRoFeAKF9lp, m Bakersfield Commons Project Page 16�_ U CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consitlerofions !1RIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 found that the Approved Project and related projects would be subject to these requirements and cumulative impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project and related projects would be expected to have similar storm water runoff impacts as the Approved Project since they would be located on similar sites and would be subject to the same design and regulatory requirements as would occur under the Approved Project. Accordingly, cumulative impacts to groundwater quality, storm water runoff, and water quality would be less than significant. G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a. Construction Approved Project Soils located on the portion of the site east of Coffee Road have the potential to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. As such, the Certified EIR found that there is the potential to encounter these contaminated soils during construction excavation and grading activities associated with the Approved Project, which could result in a significant impact. The Certified EIR found that, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts of the Approved Project during construction would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that construction of the Approved Project would not significantly impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted or on -site emergency response or evacuation plans or a local, state, or federal agency's emergency evacuation plan, and that construction activities would not create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Certified EIR found that exposure to impacted soils or underground storage tanks could result in significant impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, but that such impacts would be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures. Furthermore, the Certified EIR found that construction of the Approved Project would not expose people to substantial risk resulting from the release or explosion of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, there is potential for encountering contaminated soils in the part of the Project site located east of Coffee Road, even though this area has been, and still is, undergoing remediation under an approved Remedial Action Plan. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts of the Proposed Project during construction would be the same as under the Approved Project and also less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not significantly impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted or on -site emergency response or evacuation plans or a local, state, or federal agency's emergency evacuation plan, as the design and construction of the Proposed Project would be ONKF9'r.� Bakersfield Commons Project Page Va m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overritling Considerations U O r RlrlNAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 similar to the Approved Project with respect to access and circulation. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as the Proposed Project would involve similar construction activity as the Approved Project. Similar to the Approved Project, exposure to impacted soils or underground storage tanks could result in significant impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, but that such impacts would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures. Overall, the Proposed Project's impacts would be the same as the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Operation Approved Project The Certified EIR found that Approved Project operations have the potential to increase the routine acquisition, use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials on -site. However, the Certified EIR found that all potentially hazardous materials, including the operation of above and below ground storage tanks, would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations, and, as such, impacts associated with the routine use, storage, disposal and management of hazardous materials would be less than significant. In addition, new on -site construction associated with the Approved Project would include the use of commercially sold construction materials that would not increase the occurrence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), lead based paint (LBP), or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at the Project site. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that operation of the new development at the Project site would not expose people to these materials. In addition, per applicable regulations, workers associated with the Approved Project would be protected by worker safety requirements. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that impacts associated with the operation of the Approved Project would be less than significant. Proposed Project Operation of the Proposed Project would involve the same routine acquisition, use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials on -site as the Approved Project. As these materials, including the operation of above and below ground storage tanks, would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations, impacts associated with the routine use, storage, disposal and management of hazardous materials would be the some as under the Approved Project and also less than significant. The Proposed Project would include the same mitigation measure from the Certified EIR that requires replacement sites for existing oil wells within the Project site to mitigate potential impacts to resource extraction activities. If alternate locations for the existing wells are provided, they would be located and operated in accordance with existing regulations designed to protect sensitive receptors from health and odor effects associated with these operations, and to provide environmental protection. Accordingly, implementation of this mitigation measure would result in less than significant impacts. CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ,gPKFq�.n m o pRIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 With respect to the proposed hospital land use, the Proposed Project would include a new sensitive land use compared to the land uses in the Approved Project. The proposed hospital would be required to main a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and Material Safety Data Sheets at the facility, in order to be approved to function as a health care facility. Long -term operations associated with the proposed hospital would generate medical waste. All medical waste would be required to be transported to an approved off -site location for disposal by a licensed private hazardous materials transporter. The handling and disposal of all medical waste would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations, as well as the required HMBP, which is reviewed and approved by the Kern County Environmental Health Services Division /Hazardous Materials Section and administered by the City Fire Department. The operation of the proposed hospital facility would be required to be operated in compliance with the MBGP, Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Safety, regulations, as well as all other federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations. With federal, state, and local regulation compliance, and with mitigation measures provided in the Certified EIR, the proposed hospital land use would continue to have a less than significant impact and no new or substantially increased impacts would occur. Under the Proposed Project, the hospital use is proposed to be located on a site that is currently undergoing remediation under an approved Remedial Action Plan in accordance with the CAO issued by the CVRWQCB. Prior to construction of the proposed hospital use, the site would need to be certified for this use by CVRWQCB in accordance with existing regulations, based on assessment of the efficacy of the remediation program and the resulting site conditions, and approval of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that demonstrates to the satisfaction of CVRWQCB, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), or other cognizant regulatory agency with jurisdiction over human health risk, that any residual contamination that may exist within the site would not pose a health risk to visitors, employees and patients of the facility during construction and operations. The HRA can only be prepared once the remediation is complete. In the event that the HRA does not support inclusion of the hospital use on this site, it could potentially be used to support the development of other, less sensitive uses (e.g., commercial or industrial) on this site. However, the proposed hospital use is included in Phase II of the Proposed Project (with development occurring between 2020 and 2025), and, since the remediation is not yet complete, and an HRA has not been prepared, any consideration of alternate uses on this site would be speculative. Based on existing regulations and procedures of the CVRWQCB, construction of the proposed hospital use on this site would not be permitted unless proven to not result in health risk, and impacts associated with developing the proposed hospital use on this site would therefore be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that each of the related projects would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with transporf /use /disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools), listed hazardous material sites, aircraft related hazards, emergency response, and wildland fire hazards. Because hazardous Page CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - . ^1 City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 materials and risk of upset conditions are site- specific, this evaluation would occur on a case -by -case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Further, each related project would be required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. Accordingly, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, related projects would continue to require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with transport/use /disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools), listed hazardous material sites, aircraft related hazards, emergency response, and wildland fire hazards. Because hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are site - specific, this evaluation would occur on a case -by -case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Further, each related project would be required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. Accordingly, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant. H. MINERAL RESOURCES Approved Project The Certified EIR found that viable oil reserves exist in the vicinity of the Project site, and two wells on the eastern edge of the site were actively producing oil. Although these wells would not be demolished as part of the Approved Project and would continue to operate per City standards, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project may result in the loss of availability of a known valuable mineral resource, oil, which would be a significant impact. The Certified EIR found that this impact would be reduced to less than significant after implementation of a mitigation measure. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would be developed within the some Project site as the Approved Project and would have the potential to affect the mineral resources identified in the Certified EIR to the same extent as the Approved Project. However, the oil wells that were operational at the time the Certified EIR was prepared are no longer operating, although they have not been formally abandoned. As such, the same mitigation measure identified in the Certified EIR would continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project. This measure would require that alternate drilling sites be reserved for the existing oil wells within the Project site or provide new locations for oil wells as the Proposed Project contains considerable acreage of undeveloped land suitable for alternative drilling sites. To the extent required by the mineral rights owners, alternate locations for the existing wells would be located and operated in accordance with existing regulations designed to protect sensitive receptors from health and odor effects associated with these operations, and to provide environmental protection. Accordingly, similar to the Approved Project, impacts of the Proposed Project on mineral resources would be less than significant. �gAKF9 o s,. Bakersfield Commons Project m Page 20 o p CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that some of the related projects off -site may also occur within or near existing oil fields and sand and gravel mining operations. However, where these resources have substantial remnant supplies of regional importance, none of the related projects are anticipated to preclude continued extraction or production of these resources. Therefore, cumulative development would not result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site and impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project and related projects would not be expected to preclude extraction of regionally significant resources, and impacts would be less than significant. I. Biological Resources Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not result in significant impacts to protected trees, special status plants, plant communities, common wildlife or wildlife movement, or jurisdictional features. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project may result in potentially significant impacts to special status wildlife species, including San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, San Joaquin pocket mouse, burrowing owl and other sensitive and nesting birds. However, the Certified EIR found that these impacts would be reduced to less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 -1 through 1 -3. The Approved Project was found to be in compliance with local policies and ordinances, and would be in compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) through implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 -1. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause such a population to drop below self - sustaining levels, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, as the site currently supports minimal habitat for plant and wildlife species, and impacts to sensitive species that may occur on -site would be mitigated to less than significant. Proposed Project Based on an updated biological survey, the Addendum found that the Project site has very low species richness and diversity, and lacks high quality breeding and refuge habitats for common and special status species. It also found that the area has substantially decreased in value as a migration corridor, overland dispersal area, and as breeding habitat for wildlife because the lands are severely movement constrained. Also, the Project site area is lacking in numbers and variety of species, likely attributable to its inability to produce a high enough density of biomass to support a diversity of native flora and fauna. Accordingly, the small quantity of low -quality habitat loss o�gAKf9T s Bakersfield Commons Project page 41 t_ m CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 'ORIGINAL City of Bakersfieid September 1, 2016 associated with the Proposed Project would be a less than significant impact, similar to the Approved Project. The Addendum also found that the Project site is not collocated with any U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat; and no federal- or state - listed flora or fauna were observed within the study area during field surveys. However, similar to the Approved Project, the biological survey concluded that, under the appropriate suite of environmental conditions, the Project site includes suitable habitat to support the San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl, even though it is low quality habitat. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 -1 and 1 -3, respectively, in the Certified EIR, similar to the Approved Project, impacts of the Proposed Project on the San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl would be less than significant. In addition, Mitigation Measure 1 -2 in the Certified EIR, as modified to reflect current policies and best practices, would reduce impacts to migratory birds. With respect to other species identified in the previous survey of the Project site, the probability of occurrence of San Joaquin pocket mouse is Low - Species, and the San Joaquin antelope squirrel is no longer identified as being potentially present in the area of the Project site. The biological survey identified that the Project Site includes small areas (less than 1 %) of open water and fresh water marsh habitats that were potentially distinguishable by physical characteristics. Similar to the Approved Project, jurisdictional wetlands have not been identified within the Project site. Even assuming for the purpose of a conservative analysis, that jurisdictional wetlands were present on the Project site, they would be governed by existing regulations. Coordination with appropriate resource agencies (i.e., US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife), would ensure that surface disturbing activities would result in no net loss of protected resources. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be the same as the Approved Project and also less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that most of most of the related projects have the potential to support similar sensitive biological resources including San Joaquin kit fox, San Joaquin pocket mouse, burrowing owl and other sensitive and nesting birds. Potential impacts to these sensitive biological resources from the related projects, when considered with the potential impacts to these resources from the proposed Project, would be addressed through compliance with the MBHCP with regard to paying the development fee and implementing 'take" avoidance measures. The MBHCP was designed to consider the cumulative effect of land development in the City of Bakersfield as a whole by designating and preserving lands that have a higher biological value and that exist in large, contiguous areas. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources in the region would be effectively addressed by the MBHCP, and would be less than significant. o gPKF,fl�.r, Bakersfield Commons Project Page 22 r CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overritling Considerations v ORIGINAL City of Bokentield September 1, 2016 Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project and related projects could potentially result in cumulative effects to sensitive habitats and species within the City. However, since these effects would be addressed through the continued application of the standards and measures set forth in the MBHCP, the Proposed Project's cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. J. Cultural Resources Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not result in any impacts to historical resources. Although a records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project site, approximately six pieces of burned bone were observed at the Project site within an approximately one -meter square area during the Project site survey. After a detailed evaluation, this find was determined to not meet California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility criteria, and was therefore not considered an archaeological resource under CEQA. Thus, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not affect archaeological resources. Although the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact, the Certified EIR found that mitigation measures would further minimize the potential for impacts to archaeological resources. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to paleontological resources, based on a records search provided by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section. Overall, the Certified EIR found that impacts of the Approved Project upon cultural resources would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, as it would occur within the same Project site as the Approved Project, the Project site has not been disturbed and no new buildings have been constructed on the Project site since the Certified EIR was prepared, and no new cultural or paleontological resources that have been identified as subject to CEQA are located within the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project's impacts would be the some as the Approved Project's and also less than significant. Because the Proposed Project is a modification of an already Approved Project, AB 52 does not apply to this Proposed Project. Therefore, the changes in the regulatory setting do not require any analysis of, and do not result in a new or substantially more severe, significant environmental impact compared to the impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that potential impacts related to cultural resources would be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts would be conducted on a project- by- a ,,e1'KF;9 Bakersfield Commons Project Page 2.0 m CEQA 15091 Findings of Fact U o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 project basis. Each related project would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning preservation, salvage or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, evaluation of potential impacts for related projects would be conducted on a project -by- project basis. Each related project would be required to comply with all applicable State, Federal and City regulations concerning preservation, salvage or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources would be less than significant. K. AIR QUALITY a. Construction Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, during Phase I construction, significant regional air quality impacts would occur, before mitigation, with regard to nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in 2011 only. The Certified EIR found that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be reduced to less than significant. The Certified EIR found that emissions of all other regional criteria pollutants during Phase I construction would result in less than significant impacts. Regional emissions of all criteria pollutants throughout construction of Phases I, II and III would have less than significant impacts. The Certified EIR found that local pollutant concentrations and odor generation impacts would be less than significant throughout the construction period of the Approved Project. Proposed Project Based on an updated air quality the Addendum found that regional construction air quality impacts of the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project, since the Proposed Project would employ similar construction equipment and techniques, and would occur on the same site as the Approved Project. Under the Proposed Project, regional emissions of all criteria pollutants throughout construction of Phases I, II and III would have less than significant impacts with mitigation. Similar to the Approved Project, local pollutant concentrations impacts would be less than significant throughout the construction of the Proposed Project. An updated construction modeling analysis shows that the maximum localized concentrations of CO during construction of the Proposed Project do not exceed the State 1 -hour or the state 8 -hour ambient air quality standards. Therefore, impacts from construction on localized pollutant concentrations would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. Odors from construction of the Proposed Project would generate odors that could be detectable to adjacent uses; however, they are temporary and intermittent in nature. In addition, as construction - related emissions dissipate away from the construction area, the odors associated with these emissions would also decrease and would be BOkersheld Commons Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page o`�q NKl9T s m � o ORIGINAL City or Bakersfield September 1, 2016 quickly diluted. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors during Proposed Project construction would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Operations Approved Project The Certified EIR found that regional operational emissions associated with each of the Approved Project's individual development phases, as well as total emissions associated with the Approved Project, would result in less than significant impacts after mitigation. The Certified EIR also found that total concurrent regional emissions of all criteria pollutants in this analysis year would be less than significant, with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Certified EIR further found that the Approved Project would not result in the creation of a CO hotspot at any location, or under any development phase, and Approved Project impacts on localized CO concentrations would be less than significant. The Certified EIR also found that the calculated cancer and non - cancer risk during each Approved Project phase, as well for as the Approved Project at buildout, would be below the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District f "SJVAPCD ") thresholds, and as such, the Approved Project's health risk impact would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that, based on the Health Risk Assessment completed for the expansion of the Big West refinery, impacts to the sensitive receptors included within the Approved Project would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that the Project site is not located downwind of the Big West refinery; therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with the recommendations set forth in ARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, which provides guidance for considering health effects when siting sensitive receptors proximate to sources of toxic air contaminants (TACS). The Certified EIR found that impacts associated with Valley Fever, would be less than significant, because the Project site is not underlain by the types of sediments that are known to contain Valley Fever spores, and the Approved Project would implement dust controls as required by the SJVAPCD. The Certified EIR found that no objectionable odors would result from operation of the Approved Project, and existing sensitive receptors located adjacent to the Project site would not be exposed to any objectionable odors as a result of the Approved Project. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that no impacts associated with objectionable odors would result from operation of the Approved Project. The Certified EIR found that, since the Approved Project would include the development of 425 residential units, Approved Project - related sensitive receptors could potentially be exposed to existing sources of objectionable odors in the Project site vicinity. The nearest source of potential objectionable odors to the Project site is the Big West refinery. The Certified EIR found that, based on past odor complaints associated with Big West and other refineries in the City, and the fact that additional petroleum processing units were planned for development at the Big West refinery to increase production of gasoline and diesel fuel, odors generated at the Big West o``0AKF9� s Bakersfield Commons Project Page 25 _ m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations or ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 refinery would result in a significant impact on the proposed residential uses at the Project site. Proposed Project The updated air quality analysis in the Addendum shows that, similar to the Approved Project, regional operational emissions associated with each of the Proposed Project's individual development phases, as well as total emissions associated with the Proposed Project, would result in less than significant impacts after mitigation. Moreover, the concurrent construction and operational activities under the Proposed Project would generate an increase of annual emissions that would be below the SJVAPCD's thresholds of significance after mitigation. Impacts would be less than under the Approved Project and also less than significant. The SJVAPCD recommends that a CO hotspot analysis should be conducted for intersections where a proposed project would have a significant traffic - related congestion impact causing the LOS to change to E or F or when a project would worsen an already existing LOS F. The Traffic Study prepared for the Proposed Project indicates that the intersections in the immediate vicinity of the Project site would operate at LOS D or better under all phases of Project development. A total of 5 intersections evaluated in the Traffic Study would operate at LOS E with or without the traffic generated by the Proposed Project, while 2 intersections would operate at LOS F with or without the project. One intersection (Old River Rd & Camino Media) that would operate at LOS E without the Proposed Project would operate at LOS F with the Proposed Project, but would operate at LOS D following the mitigation recommended in the Traffic Study. One intersection (Coffee Rd & Westside Parkway WB /Brimhall Rd) that would operate at LOS D without the Proposed Project would operate at LOS E with the Proposed Project, but would operate at LOS C following the mitigation recommended in the Traffic Study. One intersection (Calloway Dr & SR 58 (Rosedale Hwy)) that would operate at LOS E without the Proposed Project would operate at LOS F with the Proposed Project, but would operate at LOS E, with reduced delay, following the mitigation recommended in the Traffic Study, Moreover, regional intersection improvements that have been identified to address traffic impacts associated with regional growth would also improve intersection operations and reduce the potential for CO hotspots. In any case, the Proposed Project would not substantially worsen the operations at these intersections. As the Proposed Project would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips than the Approved Project, the Proposed Project's impacts with respect to CO hotspots would be less that the Approved Project's and also less than significant, same as the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would involve the operation of new commercial and light industrial uses at the Project site. A small number of diesel vehicles are expected to deliver items to the site on a daily basis; much less than 100 vehicles per day. An evaluation of toxic air contaminants was conducted in the Certified EIR, which included a greater concentration of commercial uses compared to the Proposed Project, which estimated the calculated cancer risk to be 7.27 in a million and the non - cancer health index to be 0.0011, both of which were below the SJVAPCD's thresholds. The diesel emissions associated with the Proposed Project would not be greater than the amount estimated for the Approved Project. Therefore, health risks from DPM emissions would not be associated with the Proposed Project, and the impact of the Proposed Project Bakersfield Commons Protect Page 26 pF0AKF9iPT CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations I � m City of Bakersfield September 1.2016 with respect to health risk from diesel Trucks would be less than the Approved Project and also less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would include sensitive receptors that would be exposed to emissions from the Big West refinery. The residential and hospital uses of the Proposed Project would be located upwind of the Big West refinery, and impacts to these receptors would be less than significant. Moreover, since the time of the Certified EIR, the California Supreme Court published a decision (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 17, 2015), which held that "agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. ... when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project's impact on the environment - and not the environment's impact on the project - that compels an evaluation of how future residents or other users (including hospital users) could be affected by exacerbated conditions." Since conditions associated with the Big West refinery would represent an impact of the environment on the Project in this situation, evaluation of this potential impact is no longer required. Similar to the Approved Project, impacts of the Proposed Project resulting from Valley Fever, would be less than significant, because the Project site is not underlain by the types of sediments that are known to contain Valley Fever spores, and the Proposed Project would implement required dust controls. Similar to the issue of the Big West refinery discussed above, consideration of impacts associated with Valley Fever would also represent an impact of the environment on the Project, and evaluation of this potential impact is no longer required. Similar to the Approved Project, residents of the Proposed Project and other receptors within the Project site, including the proposed hospital use, could be exposed to occasional odors from the Big West refinery. These receptors could lodge complaints regarding odors with the SJVAPCD or the City. However, the Proposed Project would not create these odors and this is not an impact of the Proposed Project. As noted above, conditions associated with the Big West refinery would represent an impact of the environment on the Project in this situation, and evaluation of this potential impact is no longer required. Accordingly, even though the Certified EIR conservatively concluded that this impact would be significant and unavoidable, the impact would be more appropriately characterized as less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than under the Approved Project. C. Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans and Policies Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would successfully implement relevant policies of the MBGP Conservation Element that are geared towards protecting air quality conditions in the City, and a less than significant impact would occur. The Certified EIR found that Approved Project development would be consistent with the three air quality management plans (AQMPs) that govern activities occurring within the SJVAPCD: (1) State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide; (2) Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan; and (3) PM1O Maintenance Plan. As AKF Bakersfield Commons Project CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 f3 9dT m U � ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 such, the Certified EIR found that impacts associated with air quality plan consistency would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would successfully implement relevant policies of the MBGP Conservation Element that are geared towards protecting air quality conditions in the City, and a less than significant impact would occur. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project development would be consistent with the three AQMPs that govern activities occurring within the District: (1) State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide; (2) Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan; and (3) PM10 Maintenance Plan, and the Proposed Project's impacts associated with air quality plan consistency would be similar to the Approved Project and also less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that all of the Approved Project's air quality impacts would be less than significant, with the exception of the exposure of future on -site residents to odors attributed to the operations of the Big West Refinery. However, because this significant impact is solely attributable to the Project's location, rather than any impacts generated by Approved Project construction or operations, and neither Project construction nor operation would emit any offensive odors that would be cumulatively considerable, the Approved Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to odors. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the air quality impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant, and the Proposed Project would have less than significant cumulative air quality impacts. With respect to cumulative odor impacts, the Proposed Project would not include odor sources that would contribute to cumulative odor impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. To the extent that related projects include odor sources that contribute to cumulative odor impacts affecting the Proposed Project that would constitute an impact of the environment on the Proposed Project, and no analysis is required. K.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project's annual greenhouse gas ( "GHG ") emissions at butdout would be 58,202 tons of carbon monoxide equivalents (CO2e), which would represent approximately 0.012 percent of the 2004 Statewide GHG Inventory. The Certified EIR found that reductions in Approved Project GHG emissions would be achieved via a series of design features that would be implemented during construction and operations, including implementation of a GHG Management Plan specifically designed for the Approved Project which would assure that GHG emissions would be reduced by 29 percent below "business as usual" (BAU) levels. The Certified EIR found that, with this level of reduction, the Approved Project's GHG emissions would o�9l' ":9� Bakersfield Commons Project Page 2B� m CEGA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 be less than significant. Based on the then - applicable guidance from the SJVAPCD, the Certified EIR concluded that, based on the Approved Project's 29 percent reduction from BAU and implementation of a Project- specific GHG Management Plan, impacts with respect to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Proposed Project Based on an updated GHG analysis, the Addendum found that the Proposed Project would generate 41,083 tons of CO2e annually. Since the EIR for the Approved Project was certified, three changes in the regulatory environment with respect to the analysis and assessment of GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project have occurred. First, the SJVAPCD issued updated guidance for the assessment of GHG impacts (Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI, March 19, 2015). Second, on June 19, 2014, the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) adopted the Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS), for the purpose of establishing a set of regional transportation goals, policies, and actions intended to, among other things, reduce GHG emissions. Finally, the applicability of a numerical threshold for reduction of GHG emissions compared to a BALI threshold was addressed by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763). Based on these changes, the Proposed Project was evaluated for consistency with the Ken -COG RTP /RCS, an approved GHG emission reduction plan that would avoid or substantially reduce GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the Proposed Project is located. As set forth in the Addendum, the Proposed Project would be consistent with all of the applicable GHG reduction strategies in the RTP /RCS. Moreover, project design features listed in the Addendum would reduce the Proposed Project's stationary source GHG emissions. As set forth in the District guidance, projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions, would not be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS), and no further analysis is required. Impacts of the Proposed Project with respect to project and cumulative GHG emissions would therefore be less than under the Approved Project and also less than significant. In light of recent court decisions (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, and Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256), the Addendum considered the Proposed Project's compliance with the requirements of Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines. The Addendum analyzed the Proposed Projects electricity, natural gas and transportation energy consumption during construction and operation and concluded that the Proposed Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that implementation of State mandates and the proposed Project's project design features would contribute to greenhouse gas reductions, and that the Approved Project would be consistent with all feasible and applicable strategies to reduce GHG emissions via the design of the Project itself including, but not �epK4 Bakersfield Commons Project Page 9 I m CEaA Findings of Fact and statement of Overriding Considerations G or U ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 limited to, locating commercial uses in proximity to an existing large off -site residential population. Accordingly, the Certified EIR found that the cumulative impacts of the Approved Project's GHG emissions in conjunction with other sources of GHG emissions would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be consistent with State and regional plans, programs and policies designed to reduce GHG emissions, as discussed above. Accordingly, the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project's GHG emissions in conjunction with other sources of GHG emissions would be less than the Approved Project's and also less than significant. L. Noise a. Construction Noise Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the peak construction noise levels that would be experienced by the nearest off -site sensitive receptors (existing single - family uses located to the west and south of the Project site) would range from approximately 74 A- weighted decibels (dBA) Leq (equivalent energy noise level) to approximately 83 dBA Leq, and that the construction activities associated with the Approved Project would occur within 1,000 feet of existing off -site sensitive receptors. The Certified EIR found that construction activities associated with the Approved Project would comply with the noise regulations established in Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and that compliance with these noise regulations would result in less than significant construction - related noise impacts for the Approved Project. The Certified EIR found that mitigation measures would further reduce the less than significant impact. Proposed Project Based on an updated noise analysis, the Addendum concluded that impacts of the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project because the some construction equipment and techniques would be employed, and in the same locations as evaluated in the Certified EIR. As shown in Table 3.16, peak construction noise levels that would be experienced by the nearest off -site sensitive receptors would range from approximately 74 dBA Leal to approximately 83 dBA Leq. The analysis of the Proposed Project shows a higher estimated noise level at the single - family residence located south of the eastern portion of project site, east of Coffee Road, than was shown in the Certified EIR. This is because the Certified EIR inaccurately characterized the location of this residence relative to the Project site boundary. The accurate location of this residence is 25 feet south of the Project site boundary, rather than 182 feet, as reflected in the Certified EIR. Regardless of this difference, the construction noise sources and associated noise levels under the Proposed Project would be similar to the noise sources and noise levels identified in the Certified EIR. In addition, similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would comply with the noise regulations established in Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and compliance with these noise regulations would result in less than significant construction - related noise �pKF9 sT Bakersfield Commons Project Page m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 impacts for the Proposed Project. Accordingly, since the impact would be less than significant under both the Approved Project and Proposed Project, the differences in calculated noise levels resulting from the inaccurate location for the sensitive receptor reflected in the Certified EIR would not represent a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. In summary, construction noise impacts under the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Construction - Related Groundborne Vibration Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the off -site sensitive receptors would range from 0.005 peak particle velocity (PPV) to 0.018 PPV. The Certified EIR found that the vibration velocities experienced by the off -site sensitive receptors would not exceed any of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) construction vibration damage criteria, and, thus, a less than significant impact associated with groundbome vibration during construction would occur. In terms of human annoyance, the Certified EIR found that the vibration levels forecasted to occur at the off -site sensitive receptors would range from 65.9 velocity in decibels (VdB) to 73.0 VdB. The Certified EIR found that, because vibration levels at the off -site sensitive uses would not exceed the FTA's threshold of 75 VdB for residences, the vibration impact at these off -site sensitive uses during construction would be less than significant. Proposed Project The vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the off -site sensitive receptors under the Proposed Project would be similar to the Approved Project because the same construction equipment and techniques would be employed, and in the same locations as evaluated in the Certified EIR. Vibration velocities forecasted to occur at the off -site sensitive receptors during construction of the Proposed Project would range from 0.001 PPV to 0.018 PPV. The inaccurate location in the Certified EIR of the single family residence located south of the eastern portion of project site, east of Coffee Road, would affect the calculation of vibration levels that could be experienced at this receptor. However, under the Proposed Project, a detention basin would be located adjacent to this receptor location, which would serve as a buffer between the receptor and the Proposed Project, and would not require the use of the some heavy construction equipment as would be used elsewhere on the Project Site. Similar to the Approved Project, vibration velocities experienced by off -site sensitive receptors would not exceed any of the FTA or Caltrans construction vibration damage criteria, and, thus, a less than significant impact associated with groundborne vibration during construction would occur, even with the corrected distance to the Coffee Road sensitive receptor. In terms of human annoyance, vibration levels forecasted to occur at off -site sensitive receptors would be similar to, or lower than, the Approved Project because the some construction equipment and techniques would be employed, and in the same locations as evaluated in the Certified EIR, except for the part of the Project site located east of Coffee Road as noted above. Similar to the Approved Project, the vibration impact of the Proposed Project at off -site sensitive uses during constructior} c P KF9 d mT i n i o ORIGINAL Bakersfield Commons Project CEGA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Page City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 would be less than significant. Similarly, the correct characterization of the sensitive receptor located south of the eastern portion of project site, east of Coffee Road, would not represent a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. C. Operational Noise 1. Traffic Noise on Off -Site Noise - Sensitive Land Uses Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, based on the forecast of future noise levels, the Approved Project would not exceed the identified noise thresholds established by the City at any of the study roadway segments during the Approved Project's opening day in 2015, and a less than significant impact would occur. The Certified EIR found that, following implementation of Phases I & II, the Approved Project would increase local noise levels at one of the study roadway segments (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) such that these noise increases would exceed the City's identified noise thresholds, and would be significant. A significant impact would occur at this same segment following implementation of Phases I, II, & III. Proposed Project Traffic noise impacts of the Proposed Project would be lower than the Approved Project because the daily traffic generation of the Proposed Project would be less than the Approved Project. The Addendum found that the traffic generated by the full buildout of the Proposed Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.6 A- weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL), and would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for the existing residential uses. Accordingly, impact of the Proposed Project with respect to traffic noise would be less than significant, and would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact of the Approved Project on the segment of Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road. 2. On -site Non - Vehicular Noise Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, with implementation of Project design features, noise levels generated by the delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with the Approved Project on the nearby off -site noise sensitive uses would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would implement Project design features that would ensure that noise levels generated by the delivery, loading, and solid waste operations associated with the Proposed Project on nearby off -site noise sensitive uses would be less than significant and similar to the Approved Project. Page CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations gAK$, _ m � b ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1. 2016 3. Railroad Noise Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the exterior and interior areas of the proposed on -site residences would not be exposed to train noise that would exceed 65 dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL, respectively. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that this impact would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Certified EIR documents that the distance to the 65 dB CNEL contour from rail activity on the BNSF Railway in the City ranges from approximately 290 to 630 feet. Based on the proposed location of the on -site residential uses associated with the Proposed Project, the nearest on -site residences would be located approximately 1,090 feet south of the BNSF Railway. Due to the distance from the railway, the exterior noise levels at the proposed residential uses would not exceed the City's 65 dB CNEL standard for residential outdoor activity areas and the interior noise levels at the proposed residential uses would not exceed the City's 45 dB CNEL standard for interior living spaces. Furthermore, based on a noise measurement that was taken on -site at the location where the nearest on -site residential uses to the railway would be located, an Leq value of 52.8 dBA was measured during a 15- minute span that included a freight train passing by the Project site. The freight train was the loudest source of noise during that noise measurement, with an Lmax value of 71.6 dBA representing the maximum instantaneous noise level that was experienced at the noise measurement location when the train passed by the Project site. Based on the data sources cited above, the exterior and interior areas of the proposed on -site residences would not be exposed to train noise that would exceed 65 dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL, respectively. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. The proposed hospital building would be located approximately 350 feet south of the BNSF Railway tracks, which would be within the 65dB CNEL contour of the BNSF railway (290 to 630 feet from the tracks, as noted above). Therefore, there is the potential for the exterior of the hospital to be exposed to noise levels from this source in excess of 65 dBA CNEL. The Approved Project includes a mitigation measure designed to address the location of residential units within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of roadway sources, which would also be applicable to the hospital, as a sensitive receptor. Accordingly, this potential impact would be less than significant after implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the Certified EIR, similar to the Approved Project. Moreover, since conditions associated with the existing railroad tracks would represent an impact of the environment on the Project in this situation, evaluation of this potential impact is no longer required. 4. Operational Groundborne Vibration Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not include stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels, and that vibration levels generated by on -site operations would not result in a substantial groundborne vibration impact on o�0pKF9`P T Bakersfield Commons Project Page 33, m CEaA 15091 Findings of Fact tc o J oRIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 nearby sensitive uses. Additionally, the Certified EIR found that the BNSF Railway would not expose residential uses to substantial groundborne vibration levels from the passenger and freight trains traveling on the railway. The Certified EIR therefore found that operational groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not include stationary equipment that would result in high vibration levels. Therefore, the greatest regular source of project - related groundborne vibration would be from trucks making deliveries to the project site and garbage trucks picking -up project - related solid waste for disposal. Groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible if a roadway is smooth. All of the roadways within and in the vicinity of the Project site are smooth. Accordingly, vibration levels generated by on -site operations would not result in a substantial groundborne vibration impact on nearby sensitive uses, and impacts would be similar to those under the Approved Project and also less than significant. The proposed uses at the Project site would also be exposed to groundborne vibration generated by freight and passenger trains traveling on the BNSF Railway. As discussed previously, locomotive powered passenger and freight trains traveling at approximately 50 mph can generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of up to 85 VdB at 50 feet from the railroad. Based on information from the FTA, a locomotive powered passenger and freight train traveling at approximately 50 mph can generate a groundborne vibration velocity level of 65 VdB, which is the typical threshold of perception for humans, at a distance slightly beyond 300 feet from the track centerline. The proposed hospital would be the sensitive use nearest the railroad tracks. The nearest on -site residential uses would be located approximately 1,090 feet from the BNSF Railway. In both cases, these sensitive uses would not be exposed to substantial groundborne vibration levels from the passenger and freight trains traveling on the railway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Moreover, since conditions associated with the existing railroad tracks would represent an impact of the environment on the Project in this situation, evaluation of this potential impact is no longer required. 5. Noise Impacts on Proposed On -Site Sensitive Uses Approved Project The Certified EIR found that residential uses included in the Approved Project would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the standards established for such uses, which would constitute a significant impact. The Certified EIR found that a mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, implementation of Phases I, II, & III of the Approved Project, during the Project buildout year of 2035, would increase local noise levels at one of the study roadway segments (i.e., Brimhall Road, west of Coffee Road) such that the Proposed Project's residential uses would be located within areas where the exterior noise level would exceed the City's identified noise thresholds. The distance from the 70 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for the proposed on -site residential uses located north of Brimhall Road would be 107 and 339 feet, respectively. Based on the site plan for the �gAKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project Page 84 O JT CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 Proposed Project, the closest on -site residential properties fronting Brimhall Road could be located as close as approximately 110 feet north of the roadway. If Proposed Project residential development occurs at this location, the exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL standard for residential outdoor activity areas could be exceeded if the proposed residential uses are built within 339 feet of Brimhall Road. If the proposed residential uses are built beyond 339 feet of Brimhall Road, the City's 65 dBA CNEL standard would not be exceeded. As it cannot be determined at this time exactly where the proposed residential outdoor activity areas would be developed relative to Brimhall Road, it is assumed, for the purpose of a conservative analysis, that the Proposed Project's residential uses may be located within 339 feet of Brimhall Road. As such, this impact would be potentially significant. The some mitigation measure included in the Certified EIR, which requires preparation of an acoustic study at the time of submission of a building permit for any residential use in areas subject to noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or greater as delineated by the CNEL contour maps of the City that addresses screening measures to reduce noise levels within the residential area, would apply to the Proposed Project. With implementation of this mitigation measure, similar to the Approved Project, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. The Proposed Project contribution to this impact would be lower than the Approved Project because of lower daily traffic generation. The 70 dBA CNEL contour for Coffee Road would be 168 feet from the roadway centerline. The hospital is proposed to be located at least 560 feet from the centerline of Coffee Road. As such, it would not be exposed to roadway noise levels in excess of City standards, and the impact to this use would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, due to the distance between the Approved Project and related projects and the localized nature of noise and vibration, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the Certified EIR found that conformance with Section 9.22.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by the Approved Project and related projects would ensure that cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that the cumulative impact associated with mobile source noise generated by cumulative development along with the Approved Project would be significant and unavoidable at two locations. Cumulative development along with the Approved Project in 2035 with Phase II development and Phase III development would result in increases in roadway noise that would exceed the City's noise standards for cumulative noise impacts at two of the eight analyzed roadway segments (i.e., along Calloway Drive and Coffee Road(. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts could occur from the construction of the Proposed Project and related projects in proximity to one another. However, even if such projects were to occur in proximity and at the some time as the Proposed Project, similar compliance with Section 9.22.050 5<gAKF9 Bakersfield Commons Project Page 35 &1 CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project noise study found that the cumulative impact associated with mobile source noise generated by cumulative development along with the Proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable at two locations. Cumulative development along with the Proposed Project development in 2035 would result in increases in roadway noise that would exceed the City's noise standards for cumulative noise impacts along Calloway Drive in the vicinity of the Project site. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Projects, cumulative impact traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable; however, cumulative impacts would not be substantially greater under the Proposed Project than under the Approved Project, M. Population and Housing a. Construction - Related Growth Approved Project The Certified EIR found that construction workers would not likely relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the Approved Project, and therefore no substantial population or housing growth would occur due to the Approved Project's construction jobs. The Certified EIR found that Approved Project construction would result in a less than significant population or housing impact. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project's construction workers would be anticipated to commute to the Project site from within the City of Bakersfield or nearby, surrounding communities. Accordingly, no substantial population or housing growth would occur as a result of Proposed Project construction activity, and Proposed Project construction would result in a similar impact to the Approved Project that is also less than significant. b. Population Growth Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would directly introduce a total of approximately 1,284 new permanent residents to the Project area by 2035. In addition to the new residents associated with the proposed residential uses, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would create 5,169 net new jobs, which would be considered indirect population growth that would increase the City's population by 15,611 persons. The Certified EIR found that the total population growth associated with the Approved Project (16,895 persons) would be consistent with the forecasts of the City Planning Department as well as the KernCOG, and thus, the Approved Project would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly at the City or County level. As a result, the Certified EIR found that a less than significant impact would occur. Bakersfield Commons Project Page 3��i6AKF9J -n CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerotions a to U O ORIGINAL City of Bokersfie'd September 1, 2016 Proposed Project The Proposed Project would directly introduce a total of approximately 3,356 new permanent residents to the Project area by 2035. In addition to the new residents associated with the proposed residential uses, the Proposed Project commercial uses would create approximately 4,101 net new jobs. Conservatively assuming that 100% of new employees would relocate to the City, and taking no credit for existing on -site employment, the Proposed Project could potentially result in indirect population growth that would increase the City's population up to 12,960 persons. This projected population growth would be consistent with the most recent forecasts of the City of Bakersfield 2015 -2023 Housing Element, and the KernCOG RTP /SCS growth forecasts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly at the City or County level. As a result, the Proposed Project would have a similar impact to the Approved Project that is also less than significant impact. C. Housing Growth Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would construct 425 residential units by 2035, which would assist both the City and the County in achieving their overall housing allocations set forth in future updates to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Plan (RHNAAP). The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would increase the overall housing supply and would therefore not conflict with the current RHNAAP. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not induce substantial housing growth, and would be consistent with City General Plan housing policies. Overall, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to housing growth. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would construct 1,062 residential units by 2035, which would assist both the City and the County in achieving their overall housing allocations set forth in future updates to the RHNAAP. The RHNA goal for the City of Bakersfield is 36,290 total units between 2015 and 2023, and the Housing Element goal is 10,165 multi- family units and 15,820 single - family units between 2015 and 2023. The effects of the Proposed Project would be more beneficial than the Approved Project in this regard, since the Proposed Project would provide more housing. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would increase the overall housing supply, and would therefore not conflict with the current RHNAAP. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial housing growth, and would be consistent with MBGP housing policies. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to housing growth. Jobs - Housing Balance Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project, which would create a substantial number of new job opportunities, as well as new housing, would provide job opportunities for future Project residents and housing opportunities for the existing and future residents who are employed in the surrounding community. The Certified EIR Bakersfield Commons Project Page 37 CEGA 15091 Findings of Fact m U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 found that, by maintaining the local jobs- housing balance by providing jobs and housing, the Approved Project would also help implement regional and local policies related to trip reduction, air quality, and related polices set forth in such planning documents as the MBGP, San Joaquin Valley Partnership's (SJVP) Kern Regional Blueprint Project, and the SJVAPCD Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP). Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would create a substantial number of new job opportunities, as well as new housing, would provide job opportunities for future Project residents, and housing opportunities for the existing and future residents who are employed in the surrounding community. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would maintain the local jobs- housing balance by providing both jobs and housing, which would also help implement regional and local policies related to trip reduction, air quality, and related polices set forth in such planning documents as the MBGP, SJVP Kern Regional Blueprint Project, the SJVAPCD AQAP, and the KernCOG RTP /SCS. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to jobs- housing balance. Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that expected population growth would be consistent with City regional projections, and that proposed housing was expected to assist the City and County in meeting the regional housing need allocations set forth in the next update to the RHNAAP. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact and impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, expected population growth under the Proposed Project and related projects would be consistent with City regional projections, and proposed housing would assist the City and County in meeting the regional housing need allocations set forth in the RHNA. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact and impacts would be less than significant. N. Public Services a. Police Protection Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, because the Approved Project would employ standard precautions to ensure that there is limited need for local law enforcement at the Project construction site, impacts on police protection services during construction would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures would also be followed in accordance with Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) and other City standards, which would reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Certified EIR found Bakersfield Commons Project Page 38 oF0AKF9s,,, CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations r U 'a ORICINAI_ City or Bakersheld September I, 2016 that the Approved Project's construction- related impacts on police services would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that, according to the BPD, the Approved Project's 1,284 new permanent residents by 2035 would require two additional officers to meet the desired officer -to- population ratio. The Certified EIR found that consultation with BPD during Project review and participation in existing funding mechanisms would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not require the construction of new police facilities, and would be consistent with the goals stated in the MBGP with respect to police services. Emergency access to the Project site would be provided from Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, as well as the two proposed internal roadways which would bisect the Project site. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not impact existing emergency routes, and no hazardous design features are included in the access design or site plan for the Approved Project that could impede emergency access. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that impacts related to police protection services during Project operations would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would employ standard precautions to ensure that there is limited need for local law enforcement of the Project construction site, and impacts on police protection services during construction would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would follow appropriate noticing and traffic management procedures in accordance with BPD and other City standards, which would reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles. Accordingly, the Proposed Project's construction - related impacts on police services would be less than significant. Using the standard of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population provided in the MBGP, the 3,356 new permanent residents that would be accommodated by the Proposed Project by 2035 would require six additional officers to meet the desired officer -to- population ratio. Similar to the Approved Project, consultation with BPD during Project review and participation in existing funding mechanisms would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new police facilities, and would be consistent with the goals stated in the MBGP with respect to police services. Under the Proposed Project, emergency access to the Project site would continue to be provided from Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, as well as the two proposed internal roadways which would bisect the Project site. As the Proposed Project would not impact existing emergency routes, and no hazardous design features are included in the access design or site plan for the Proposed Project that could impede emergency access, impacts related to police protection services during Proposed Project operations would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Fire Protection Approved Project The Certified EIR found that noticing and traffic management procedures that would be followed in accordance with Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) and other City �gAKF9 Bokersbeid Commons Pralect Page 39 0 CEQA Findings of Fad antl5latemeni of Overritling Considerations r M U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 2016 standards would reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles, and the Approved Project's construction - related impacts on fire services would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that all development on -site would be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and local amendments, Title 19, 22 and 27 of the California Safety Code Regulations, the Bakersfield Municipal Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Standards, which would reduce the Approved Project's impacts to less than significant. The Certified EIR further found that, according to the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD), no new facilities would need to be constructed due to the development of the Proposed Project because the site and proposed uses would be adequately served by existing stations, and the existing available fire flow for the Project site would be adequate to serve the proposed land uses, such that impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that access would be provided according to the requirements of the BFD, and the proposed development plans would be submitted to the BFD for review prior to construction. Thus, the Certified EIR found that impacts associated with fire services and apparatus accessibility after construction would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would follow noticing and traffic management procedures that would be followed in accordance with BFD and other City standards that would reduce the potential for increased response times for emergency vehicles, and the Proposed Project's construction - related impacts on fire services would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, all development on -site under the Proposed Project would be subject to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and local amendments, Title 19, 22 and 27 of the California Safety Code Regulations, the Bakersfield Municipal Code and the National Fire Prevention Association Standards, which would reduce the Proposed Project's impacts to less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, no new facilities would need to be constructed due to the development of the Proposed Project because the site and proposed uses would be adequately served by existing stations, and the existing available fire flow for the Project site would be adequate to serve the proposed land uses. Over time, the provision of new or upgraded fire stations would be accommodated through the City's normal programming and budget processes. Under the Proposed Project, development plans would be submitted to the BFD for review prior to construction. Impacts of the Proposed Project associated with fire services and apparatus accessibility after construction would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. C. Schools Approved Project The Certified EIR found that students generated by the Approved Project would exceed the current capacity of Columbia and Quailwood Elementary Schools, and Fruitvale Junior High School, although the future capacity of these schools at project buildout cannot be known at this. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would be required to pay school fees per SB 50 which would provide full and complete mitigation of ,NK499 N Bakersfield Commons Project 81 40 �^ CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o 0 nRtGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 of school impacts for the purposes of CEQA, and, with payment of the required fees, impacts to school facilities would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, students generated by the Proposed Project could potentially exceed the capacity of the schools that would serve the Project. As required by SB50, the Proposed Project would be required to pay school fees which would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts for the purposes of CEQA, and, with payment of the required fees, impacts to school facilities would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. d. Parks and Recreation Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the four acres of park and open space provided by the Approved Project would represent a rate of 3.1 acres per 1,000 residents, which would exceed the existing City ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, as well as the regulatory requirements of both the City of Bakersfield and the Quimby Act. In addition, the Approved Project would include improvements to the park space in an amount equivalent to 1 acre per 1,000 persons. As such, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would provide parkland in excess of existing regulatory requirements, and impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would include 9.3 acres of public park land, which would represent a rate of 2.77 acres per 1,000 residents, which would exceed the existing City ratio of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, as well as the regulatory requirements of the City of Bakersfield, NOR and the Quimby Act. Impacts of the Proposed Project to parks and recreational facilities would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. e. Libraries Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the addition of permanent residents that would be served by the Southwest Branch LSA would be is consistent with anticipated population growth, and the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding library services. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the addition of permanent residents that would be served by the Southwest Branch LSA under the Proposed Project would be consistent with anticipated population growth. Therefore, like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts regarding library services. o�gAH�9in Bakersfield Commons Project Page 41 t� m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations '� o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I, 4016 Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project and related projects would increase the demand for police and fire protection services in the Project area. The Certified EIR found that this need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the Approved Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, similar to the Approved Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to police and fire department review, and would be required to comply with all applicable development and design requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts on police and fire protection and services would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that the payment of developer fees would provide full mitigation of school facilities impacts from the Approved Project and related projects in accordance with SB 50. Therefore, cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project and related projects would increase the demand for park and library services in the Project area. The Certified EIR found that this need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the Approved Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, with respect to parks, similar to the Approved Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to review and would dedicate land or pay in -lieu park fees in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code, General Plan, and the Quimby Act. Therefore, cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities, and libraries, would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, increased demand for police, fire, and library services associated with the Proposed Project and related projects would be addressed via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the Approved Project and related projects would be required to contribute. With respect to police and fire services, related projects would be individually subject to police and fire department review, and would be required to comply with all applicable development and design requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code and General Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts on police and fire protection and services, and libraries would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, payment of developer fees would provide full mitigation of school facilities impacts from the Proposed Project and related projects in accordance with SB 50. Therefore, cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project and related projects would increase the demand for park and recreation services in the Project area. Similar to the Approved EIR, this need would be funded via existing mechanisms (i.e., developer fees, o``gpK�9T s Bakersfield Commons Project Page 421 m CEQA 15091 Findings of Fact U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 property taxes, government funding) to which the applicants of the Proposed Project and related projects would be required to contribute. In addition, similar to the Approved Project, each of the related projects would be individually subject to review and would dedicate land or pay in -lieu park fees in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City of Bakersfield's Municipal Code, General Plan, and the Quimby Act. Therefore, as under the Approved Project, cumulative impacts on parks and recreational facilities under the Proposed Project would be less than significant. O. Uffllties a. Sewer Service Approved Project The Certified EIR found that, after full implementation of the Approved Project, excess capacity would remain within the sewer lines serving the Project site, and the Approved Project would not require or result in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Accordingly, the Certified EIR found that impacts on sewer infrastructure would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would add a total of 1.55 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater flow at full buildout in 2035 to Treatment Plant No. 3, which would have sufficient treatment capacity available to meet the demand generated by the Approved Project at buildout. As such, the Certified EIR found that Approved Project impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. Proposed Project Based on an update sewer study , the Addendum found that the Proposed Project would generate a total sewer load of 2.90 cubic feet per second (cfs) that would be conveyed to the City's Treatment Plant No. 3 via an 18 -inch line that presently runs adjacent to the Project site in Brimhall Road, and a 36 -inch lined planned for the future El Toro Viejo Road located within the Project site, to a 36 -inch line in Brimhall Road that carries flows to the treatment plant, upsizing to a 42 -inch line along the way. Recent development of the Stockdale Ranch, which would discharge into the same 42" line as the Proposed Project, has increased the loads to beyond the existing infrastructure's design capacity. However, that sewer study, dated May 12, 2014, concludes that even with the addition of the Stockdale Ranch development, 2.44 cfs of capacity remains in the downstream lines. City staff has not identified any current or pending additional flows into the downstream pipe subsequent to the report. Using the City's generation rates, sufficient additional capacity would exist to accommodate wastewater flows from the first two phases of the Proposed Project. In accordance with Mitigation Measures 0-1 and 0-2 of the Approved Project, flows from the Proposed Project and within the limiting pipe will be metered before Phase III development to determine the actual capacity of the downstream system and loads generated from the Project site. If the metering shows that the capacity of the line will be exceeded, necessary upgrades will be made before commencement of operations of Phase III. Accordingly, impacts of the Proposed Project on sewer infrastructure would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. �$PK4_ Bakersfield Commons Project Page 43r n CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Oveviding Considerations r or ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 Wastewater flows from the Proposed Project to Treatment Plant No. 3 would be approximately 605,000 gallons per day (gpd), lower than the Approved Project. Since the treatment plant would have sufficient treatment capacity available to meet the demand generated by the Proposed Project at buildout, the Proposed Project's impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. b. Water Service Approved Project 1. Water Demand The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would have an average projected water demand of approximately 803 acre -feet per year (AF /yr). The Certified EIR found that the City had 200,000 AF of annual water supply available, as of 2007, the current demand for the City's service area was 38,679 AF. The future demand for the City's service area in 2035 is forecasted to be 73,170 AF/yr. As the Approved Project's demand for water is less than one percent of the available water supply at Project buildout, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would not significantly change conditions throughout the overall basin or sub -basin groundwater balance. In addition, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project incorporated design features to conserve water, including installation of low -flow fixtures, efficient irrigation systems, and drought - tolerant landscaping. The Certified EIR concludes that the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 2. Fire Flow The Certified EIR found that, based on a projection of pressure to flow rate, the maximum commercial flow rate of 3,500 gpm at 20 psi for two hours could be provided. Therefore, the Certified EIR found that there is sufficient water volume to serve the Approved Project's fire flow demands, and impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project 1. Water Demand Based on an updated Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the Addendum found that the Proposed Project net water supply requirement at build -out in 2035 is estimated to be 769 acre -feet per year (AF /yr). This net demand is well within the increase in demand estimated in the City's 2010 Urban Wafer Management Plan (UWMP). The estimated Domestic Water System total demand within the City's service area, identified in the 2010 UWMP for 2015, was 45,906 AF /yr, and demand in 2030 is estimated to be 52,735 AF /yr. Similar to the Approved Project, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Accordingly, the impacts of the Proposed Project with respect to water supply would be lower than the Approved Project and also less than significant. gNKe, Bakersfield Commons Protect c a'.� Page 44 > CEOA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations U O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfle)d September I, 2016 With respect to local domestic water infrastructure, under the Proposed Project, it is possible, based on the determination of the City, that construction of local water conveyance facilities may be required. The City historically allows new groundwater wells to be installed by developers as development occurs. Generally, four (4) wells are installed for each 640 acres or one section of land. Based on this rule of thumb, City staff is estimating that one (1) to two (2) new water wells would be required to serve the Proposed Project at build -out. Also, City staff believes that a storage tank and upsized mains would be required in this area due to both the new development, and also existing conditions. The storage tank may assist during peak demand periods, and possibly could be used as a blending tank and /or a central water treatment facility in the future. Accordingly, impacts of the Proposed Project associated with domestic water facilities would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. The Proposed Project would comply with CalGreen sustainable construction practices as well as all applicable federal, state, City, and municipal requirements for construction and development with respect to water use and water conservations, which would further reduce water consumption. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially greater impact than the Approved Project. 2. Fire Flow Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would include new water infrastructure capable of meeting the fire flow requirement of up to 3,500 glom at 20 psi residual pressure for three hours, which would meet the maximum flow rate requirement for commercial uses. This rate of flow would also be within the requirement for the proposed new hospital use, as well as the rate for multifamily residential use of up to 1,500 gpm, for 2 hours at 20 psi residual pressure. Accordingly, similar to the Approved Project, there would be sufficient water volume to serve the Proposed Project's fire flow demands, and impacts would be less than significant. C. Solid Waste Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 50 tons per day at Project buildout. The Certified EIR found that solid waste generation at Project buildout would constitute less than one percent of the available capacity of the Bena landfill, and the landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Approved Project's solid waste disposal needs. The Certified EIR found that impacts of the Approved Project related to solid waste would be less than significant. Proposed Project Solid waste generation of the Proposed Project would be lower than the approximately 50 tons per day that would be generated by the Approved Project at Project buildout. Solid waste generation of the Proposed Project at Project buildout would constitute less than one percent of the available capacity of the Bena landfill, and the landfill has permitted capacity through 2046 to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. As such, the impacts of the Proposed Project with respect to solid waste generation would be less than the Approved Project and less than significant. Bakersfield Commons Project Page 45 oFeAKF9u' '^ m CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations � o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 d. Electrical Service Approved Project The Certified EIR found that there is available supply and distribution capacity to meet the Approved Project's demands attributable to each development phase as well as the Project at buildout (425,543 kilowatts per year of electricity demand). The Certified EIR found that, if the existing system could accommodate Approved Project demand, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The Certified EIR found that, if the existing facilities are not able to accommodate Project demand, a potential impact would occur. The Certified EIR found that mitigation measures, including the addition of an underground distribution system routed to the nearest electrical substation, and /or construction of a new substation within the Project Site, would reduce this impact to less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, available supply and distribution capacity would be adequate to meet the Proposed Project electricity demand. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would coordinate with PG&E to determine the precise facilities needed to meet the individual needs of the Proposed Project phases, based on actual power demand. Mitigation measures, including the addition of an underground distribution system routed to the nearest electrical substation, and /or construction of a new substation within the Project site, would continue to apply to the Proposed Project, and impacts would be similar to the Approved Project's and also less than significant. e. Natural Gas Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in an increased natural gas demand of 23.5 million cubic feet per day. Because the Gas Company indicated that there is available supply to meet the Approved Project's demands during each development phase as well as the Project at buildout, the Certified EIR found that the Approved Project, with the exception of a limited number of local connections, would not require additions to or modifications of the existing off -site distribution system. The Certified EIR found that, with the upgrading and expansion of the on -site distribution system, which is incorporated into the Approved Project as a design feature, impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, available supply and distribution capacity would be adequate to meet the Proposed Project natural gas demand. Because there is available supply to meet the Proposed Project's demands during each development phase as well as the Proposed Project at buildout, the Proposed Project, with the exception of a limited number of local connections, would not require additions to or modifications of the existing off -site distribution system. With the upgrading and expansion of the on -site distribution system, which is incorporated into the Proposed Project as a design feature, impacts would be less than significant and similar to the Bakersfield Commons Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Consitlerot=s Page o``0AKF9� T m 5 0 ORIGINAL City of Bokerstidd September f, 2016 Cumulative Impacts Approved Project The Certified EIR found that the potential need for the related projects to require upgraded wastewater lines to accommodate wastewater generated by these projects is site - specific and as such, would be appropriately addressed during the review and approval process for each related project. The Certified EIR found that cumulative increases in wastewater generation would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System had sufficient capacity to supply the Approved Project and related projects from existing entitlements and resources and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that development of the Approved Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in solid waste generation. However, Kern County anticipated that the Bena Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in demand. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The Certified EIR found that development of the Approved Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in electrical and natural gas demand resulting from projected population, housing, and employment growth. However, since PG &E and SoCalGas anticipated sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in electrical and natural gas demand. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project Similar to the Approved Project, the potential need for the related projects to require upgraded wastewater lines to accommodate wastewater generated by these projects is site- specific and as such, would be appropriately addressed during the review and approval process for each related project. Similar to the Approved Project, cumulative increases in wastewater generation would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities beyond the already proposed expansion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System has sufficient capacity to supply the Proposed Project and related projects from existing entitlements and resources, as demonstrated in the updated Water Supply Assessment, and would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Similar to the Approved Project, the potential need for the related projects to require upgraded water lines or other facilities to accommodate o�epKPq T Bakersfield Commons Project page 47 L- m U O CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 water demand associated with these projects is site - specific and as such, would be appropriately addressed during the review and approval process for each related project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, development of the Proposed Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in solid waste generation. The Bena Landfill, which is projected to have sufficient capacity through 2046, would have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in demand. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project, development of the Proposed Project in combination with the related projects would create an increase in electrical and natural gas demand resulting from projected population, housing, and employment growth. As PG &E is currently upgrading its facilities in the Project area and continuously plans and provides new facilities to serve increased demand, and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) has indicated sufficient gas supplies to serve its entre service area, these entities are anticipated to have sufficient capacity to serve projected increases in electrical and natural gas demand. Additionally, each of the related projects would be required to comply with all applicable State energy conservation requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. V. FINDINGS REGARDING ADDENDUM Evaluation of Alternatives CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the "No Project' alternative. The Certified EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the Approved Project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Modification of Mitigation Measures As set forth in the Addendum and the MMRP, several of the mitigation measures from the Certified EIR were modified. The reasons for the modification are set forth in the Addendum, and include modifications to reflect current City policies, legal requirements, and /or best management practices, and to reflect the reduced impacts of the Proposed Project as compared to the Approved Project. The City finds that all of the modifications to the mitigation measures are necessary and appropriate, that as modified the measures are feasible, and that substantial evidence in the Addendum supports the conclusion that the modified measures will reduce or avoid significant impacts of the Proposed Project. Use of Addendum Instead of Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Based on the analysis and evaluation provided in the Addendum and as summarized above, no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project, nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously - identified 0NKp significant environmental impact. In addition, no new information of substantial , 9s,. Bakersfieltl Commons Project page q � m or CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of aveniding Considerations ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Therefore, no condition described in Section 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has occurred. For this reason, an addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the Proposed Project. VI. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The City of Bakersfield, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Project, makes the following findings with regard to the environmental review process undertaken to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Project: 1. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an addendum to an EIR need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR and presented to the decision - making body. 2. The Addendum is available for public review at the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department - Planning Division, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301, and was made available as an Attachment to the Staff Report that will be provided when the Proposed Project is scheduled for consideration by the decision - making body. 3. The City finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Addendum, and that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City of Bakersfield. 4. The City finds that the Addendum provides objective information to assist the decision - makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. 5. CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP ") for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The mitigation measures included in the Addendum and included in the MMRP as adopted by the City serves that function. The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the Addendum and adopted by the City in connection with the approval of the Proposed Project and has been designed to ensure compliance with such measures during implementation of the Proposed Project. In accordance with CEQA, the MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. 6. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions of approval for the Project. 7. The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made herein is contained in the Certified EIR and the Addendum, 1 "(1f 911 Bakersfield Commons Project Page 49 r i; CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations o o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 which are incorporated herein by this reference, or is in the record of proceedings in the matter. 8. The City is approving the Addendum and adopting findings for the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the Addendum as comprising the Proposed Project. It is contemplated that there may be a variety of actions undertaken by other State and local agencies (who might be referred to as 'responsible agencies" under CEQA). Because the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, the Addendum is intended to be the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions by other State and local agencies to carry out the Project. VII. APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Bakersfield hereby takes the following actions: A. The City Council hereby certifies: (1) it was provided with the Certified EIR, the Addendum and all associated technical reports; (2) it reviewed and considered the information in such documents; (3) the Addendum was completed in compliance with CEQA; and (4) the Addendum reflects its independent judgment and analysis. B. The City Council hereby approves the Addendum. C. The City Council hereby adopts as conditions of approval of the Proposed Project each of the Project features referenced in the Addendum and all mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City set forth in the findings. D. The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Proposed Project In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. E. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference and adopts these findings and determinations contained in "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations" in their entirety as a part of its findings and determinations for these actions and approvals. F. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference and adopts the statement of overriding considerations included with its findings and determinations contained in "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ". G. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Community Development Department - Planning Division to make amendments and /or substitutions of mitigation measures if, in the exercise of discretion of the City Community Development Department, it is determined that the amended or substituted mitigation measures will mitigate the identified potential environmental impact to at least the same degree as the original mitigation measure, and where the amendment or substitution would not result in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated. o�0NK499 s Bakersfield Commons Project Page 50t� m CEGA Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations o O ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 H. Having approved the Addendum, independently reviewed and analyzed the Addendum, incorporated mitigation measures into the Proposed Project, and adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations, the City Council hereby approves the Proposed Project and its associated discretionary approvals. 5: \GPAs \GPA Ain M16 \16uDKP tokenfield Camm.nF \EIR Alaendum \Rnding of Fact 8- 24X16 \Bakemrdid Comment Addendum Facings 8- 22- 16.Ad- Bakersfield Commons Project Page 511— m CEaA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations U o ORIGINAL REVISED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 Addendum to Previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) SCH # 2007041043 For Bakersfield Commons Project General Plan Amendment / Zone Change No. 16 -0204 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0219 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0220 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0221 Planned Unit Development No. 16 -0222 Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 6617 Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield Community Development Department - Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 -5210 Jacquelyn Kitchen, Planning Director Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Paul Johnson, Principal Planner Jennie Eng, Principal Planner • B A K E R S F I E L D ww✓. BekarsheklCM wm September 1, 2016 oOAKf 9sT r m r p pgIGVa- City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING Introduction As Lead Agency, the City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Community Development Department prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bakersfield Commons Project (referred to herein as the "Approved Project ") which evaluated general plan amendment (GPA) and zone change (ZC) approvals for a mixed -use Project containing approximately 1,400,000 square feet of retail commercial use, 600,000 square feet of office commercial use, 345 multi - family dwelling units, and 80 single - family homes. The City of Bakersfield City Council certified the Bakersfield Commons Project EIR (referred to herein as the "Certified EIR" or "EIR ", State Clearinghouse No. 2007041043) and approved the Bakersfield Commons Project on August 11, 2010. In connection with such certification, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and related findings of fact. On September 15, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6617 as part of the original approvals for the Approved Project. Modifications are now being proposed to the Approved Project the "Proposed Project'). As Lead Agency, the City of Bakersfield Planning Division of the Community Development Department prepared an Addendum to the Certified EIR ( "Addendum "). The Addendum has identified unavoidable significant impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that when the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the CEQA document but are not mitigated to a less than significant level, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the completed CEQA document and /or other information in the record. State CEQA Guidelines require, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), that the decision maker adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations at the time of approval of a project if it finds that significant adverse environmental effects have been identified in the CEQA document that cannot be substantially mitigated to a less than significant level or be eliminated. These findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to, the Addendum, the Certified EIR, and other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." o``8pKF9N T Bakersfield Commons Project Page o CEOa 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1 2016 When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Project benefits are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur without the Project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Proposed Project, balanced the economic, social, technological and other benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to less than significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This statement of overriding considerations is based on City review of the Addendum and other information in the administrative record, including but not limited to, the Certified EIR and all the technical appendices. Impacts from Proposed Project As set forth in the Addendum, the following impacts of the Proposed Project are not mitigated to a less than significant level: transportation (but only if the identified mitigation measures are rejected by an agency with jurisdiction or implementation is delayed); and cumulative traffic noise (operational). As set forth in the Addendum, it is not feasible to mitigate such impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation/Traffic The Addendum identifies feasible mitigation measures that would reduce all of the Proposed Project's transportation and traffic impact to less than significant. However, in the event that the regional traffic impact fee (RTIF) improvements or certain other improvements identified as potential mitigation are not implemented or delayed in implementation due to a reduction of funding as a result of reduced development, then there will likely be less traffic and less of a need for the identified mitigation measures. However, it is possible that significant unavoidable impacts could remain. Moreover, if implementation of such improvements is delayed, temporary significant impacts could occur. Similarly, if sufficient right -of -way to implement the proposed mitigation measures were not available where needed, significant and unavoidable traffic impacts could remain. Cumulative Operational Noise Impacts Significant cumulative noise impacts at along Calloway Drive would occur during Phase III operations. Bakersfield Commons Project CEQA 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations Page o�gpKE9s m � o ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September I. 2016 Project Benefits Despite having significant unavoidable environmental impacts, the Proposed Project is being proposed to allow the construction of the smallest environmental footprint and with the greatest amount of open space area, to provide needed housing and employment opportunities to City residents, and to provide amenities to City residents and visitors. Accordingly, the City adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the Proposed Project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected alternatives to the Proposed Project, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv)balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against the Proposed Project's significant and unavoidable impacts, the City hereby finds that the benefits outweigh and override the significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below. The below stated reasons summarize the benefits, goals, and objectives of the Proposed Project, and provide, in addition to the above findings, the detailed rationale for the benefits of the Proposed Project. These overriding considerations of economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental benefits for the Proposed Project justify adoption of the Proposed Project and approval of the Addendum. Many of these overriding considerations individually would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and justify adoption of the Proposed Project and approval of the Addendum. In particular, achieving the underlying purpose for the Proposed Project would be sufficient to override the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The City finds that the following substantial benefits will occur as a result of approval of the Proposed Project: 1. The Proposed Project would promote urban activity, a diversity of uses, and the development of public benefits and amenities. The Proposed Project's mix of uses would be built around a "main street" concept and retail functions would be aligned to generate the activity of a traditional "main street" to provide opportunities for social, cultural, recreational, and civic interaction within the community. 2. The Proposed Project would transform an underutilized site into a sustainable, infill development that would create economic and housing opportunities in an area served with existing infrastructure and public services. 3. The Proposed Project would create an inviting lifestyle retail center that integrates the diversity of proposed uses and meets the needs of the surrounding community. 4. The Proposed Project would complement existing development trends in the area including a viable economic center that would attract new businesses, employment, and investment. Bakersfield Commons Project page CEQA 15093 Statement of Overriding Consicferations o``gAKF9m 3- m U p ORIGINAI. City of Bakersfield September 1, 2016 5. The Proposed Project would provide for economic growth and revenue generation to the City through creation of a flexible, market- driven development that responds to the existing and future needs and demands of Bakersfield's residential and commercial markets while maintaining a balance of uses to serve various users (e.g., residents, workers, tourists, visitors). 6. The Proposed Project would establish a community with a mix of uses that would meet the diversified needs of the on -site residents. The placement of a residential development in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, and transportation routes would promote a walkable environment that reduces vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, as well as air pollution and community noise levels. This walkable environment includes parks, trails, open space, and linkages to the City's existing park system, accommodating the recreational needs of residents. 7. The Proposed Project would promote an environmentally sensitive balance of uses through incorporation of pedestrian scale design components into landscaped linkages along with grassy swoles for improving water quality, landscaped areas for the detention and retention of drainage flows to improve water quality, greenscope and hardscape to soften the surrounding built environment, and bikeways, separate and distinct from walking paths. 8. The Proposed Project would be an infill development that promotes the sustainable principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building. The Proposed Project incorporates many sustainable design features and will seek certification from the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) for, at a minimum, the retail, office, and industrial components. A fundamental aspect of the Proposed Project's design would be the incorporation of sustainable practices in site development and building design. This Project design component could include the use of alternative energy sources, as well as energy conserving principles. Vegetation, trees, and structures would be used to create shaded walkways and shelters as well as the use of water features to cool and shade the outdoor experience for the pedestrian. Shading in portions of the parking areas also would be accomplished through structures that incorporate solar panels for green power as well as shading. Daylighting, views to the outdoors, and features such as shading devices, broad roof overhangs and similar architectural elements as well as other sustainable, "green" practices would be utilized throughout the Proposed Project. Compliance with state laws regarding water and energy conservation, including Title 24, also would result in increased efficiency and sustainability. 9. Development of the Proposed Project in an established urban center served by existing infrastructure would minimize the need for the development of new infrastructure and make more efficient use of existing facilities. 10. By introducing residential uses in close proximity to parks, shopping, dining, entertainment and jobs, and in close proximity to transit, pedestrian paths, and a network of bicycle routes, the Proposed Project will reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. 11. The Proposed Project would provide improvements to the vehicular and pedestrian movements through the construction of new sidewalks, pathways, bike lanes, and transit facilities on site. The Proposed Project would also provide a Bakersfield Commons Project Page 4 CEGA 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations oFgAK$9q U [) ORIGINAL City of Bakersfield September 1 2016 network of bike trails and lanes, which would be separated from pedestrian walkways and primary roadways, as appropriate, as well as bike racks throughout the site. The bike trails would be designed to link with future City bike trail plans and promote bicycling to the various land uses within the Proposed Project. 12. The Proposed Project would also provide open space, including 9.2 acres of public parks, to meet the recreational and aesthetic needs of Project residents, visitors, and occupants, while providing a buffer between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the south. Portions of the transmission corridor would be used as landscaped open space, greenways, bio- swales, drainage areas, surface parking, and other compatible uses. 13. The Proposed Project would provide a hospital and related medical office space to meet the health care needs of residents in the area. 14. The Proposed Project would provide needed housing for seniors. 15. The Proposed Project would generate a significant number of short term construction jobs and long term operational jobs. 16. The Proposed Project would generate substantial revenues to the City in the form of sales tax, property tax, and transient occupancy tax. Statement The City hereby finds that approval of the Proposed Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to transportation /traffic and cumulative traffic noise (operational) as described above and in the Addendum. The City finds that these significant and unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the Project benefits described above and, therefore, are acceptable. The City further finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to less than significant levels, there are specific economic, social, planning, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Proposed Project. Moreover, the City finds that where more than one reason exists for any findings, the City finds that each reason independently supports these findings, and that any reason in support of a given finding individually constitutes a sufficient basis for that finding. Record of Proceedings Various documents and other materials, including the Addendum, constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Documentation related to this Project is located at the City offices as follows: The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department- Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 -5210 S\GPAS \GPA 4th 2016\16LM0 I.1 —loot Commani\EIR Ad deroumUlafemenl of Overring GO,ameTflOns \1990�okenfiold CommO,Uptlare SOC fun Addendum EIR (Rev 8 22 16J tlor, Bakersfield Commons Project Pa 5 CEOA 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations r_ t�PIG1NAl Exhibit 5. Revised Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program o``8pKF9� T f- m U [) ORIGINAL REVISED MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING PROGRAM ADDENDUM to Previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) SCH # 2007041043 For Bakersfield Commons Project GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / ZONE CHANGE NO. 16 -0204 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0219 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0220 Planned Commercial Development No. 16 -0221 Planned Unit Development No. 16 -0222 Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 6617 Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield Community Development Department - Planning Division 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 -5210 Jacquelyn Kitchen, Planning Director Martin Ortiz, Principal Planner Paul Johnson, Principal Planner Jennie Eng, Principal Planner B A K E R S F I E L D nw.v. BaAe 'l kCrty mm September 1, 2016 City of Bokeafield updated September 1, 2016 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM I_ A;, IYIC Hc\ IN]: I_ 1: I�7:. W: IYC �];7L`[HJ;C�ZH;7d;.[K�]:1I�:YF This document is the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed Bakersfield Commons Project (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change [GPA/ZC] 06 -1877) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007041043), located in the northwestern portion of the City of Bakersfield. The MMP includes a brief discussion of the legal basis for and the purpose of the program, discussion, and direction regarding complaints about noncompliance, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, and the monitoring matrix itself. B. LEGAL BASIS OF AND PURPOSE FOR THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM California Public Resources Code §21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The MMP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the EIR prepared for the Bakersfield Commons Project. It is intended to be used by City of Bakersfield (City) staff, participating agencies, the developer, project contractors, and mitigation monitoring personnel during implementation of the proposed Project. Mitigation is defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15370 as a measure that does any of the following: • Avoids impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. • Rectifies impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. • Reduces or eliminates impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project. • Compensates for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary, on -site identification and resolution of environmental problems, and proper reporting to City staff. Bakersfield Commons Project Mitigation Monitcang Program Page 1 of 48 Ctfy of Bakersfield updated September 1, 2016 C. MITIGATION MONITORING TABLE Table V -1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, identifies the mitigation measures proposed for the Bakersfield Commons Project. These mitigation measures are reproduced from the EIR and conditions of approval for the Project. The table has the following columns: Mitigation Measure /Summary of Measure: Lists the mitigation measures identified within the EIR for a specific impact, along with the number for each measure enumerated in the EIR. Implementation Phase: Identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation measures will be completed. Monitoring Phase: Identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation measures will be monitored. Enforcing Agency: References the City department or any other public agency with which coordination is required to satisfy the identified mitigation measure. Verification of Compliance: Spaces to be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to a specific mitigation measure. D. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the proposed Project. The complaint shall be directed to the City in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The City shall conduct an investigation to determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with a mitigation measure has occurred, the City shall take appropriate action to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. Bakersfield Commons Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Page 2 of 48 � CL Im ƒ {)[ \)) \ { \ \\ \ \: /�)7)) ; o01 \ \ \ \ \0 } / { § /)\, 3§§ }$ / {\ 2902 )) 11 1 - )0 a _ \ \�\/ \ \ » /( { / ®»B # /) k § \] }0 11 1 T c m 0) a .fl L din c O C c O w j I 3 0 oLa w E� a C c o a a o .0 g0) 2 0 o a � 0 0 0 o N N N 6 m C 0 3 a N i a N D! c C E 0 a N T a N N ° v.o°3v T 3 N a = E O U a c « h C) N Q 0 O t d c U u $ o o 0 Q >a�I�aE Q o E °a °a......... a 0 COCo 0 c o,,,. a) ',, O C C 0 0 0 dI C O .O c O U in a,_Uc� o U � I a) I c O) O 7 3 ,. r 3 o ''I . `o ii ICI �� E c o � o W> p ;: s 5 E a� a WIII C Ea 0 O o O ~ a 06 A Z, . a O c U 0 rc a 1 a ID 0 c a� �o o c c SO a O o w a) o `o(II W o� off, a Q C Q O O1. O C a5 .E ai E N O L a) RAI ('I `o x o b 7 . D a) > � I s o o o a U U E (E O . o H C c I am Q ,L U o.........4) N a d) ¢31 o a o o a o i I L C t l t L O T c m 0) a .fl L din ? T T O a) 0 0- L d N m c O o ? oLa o � c � O O O7 o 3 2.o E c a 0 U O)oa c c o6a E ago 6 9 L N a 0 ao O c UO > 0 a) c � oa Ali acool � u O E 0 ` w V m C L U C O.a C c (D O N m 0- ',.. I II c c O C c O w j O C L 3 0 oLa aD)a E� a C c o a a o .0 g0) 2 0 o a � 0 0 0 o N N N 6 m C 0 3 a N i a N D! c C E 0 a N T a N N ° v.o°3v T 3 �I a = E 0 U a c « h C) N Q 0 O t d c U u $ o ? T T O a) 0 0- L d N m c O o ? oLa o � c � O O O7 o 3 2.o E c a 0 U O)oa c c o6a E ago 6 9 L N a 0 ao O c UO > 0 a) c � oa Ali acool � u O E 0 ` w V m C L U C O.a C c (D O N m 0- ',.. I II c c 3 3 a a 0 2 0 0 N N 6 N i ao Q t Q om.m mm 0 c x > c 0 wool E 0 aj p O o 0 Q >a�I�aE Q o E °a °a......... a 0 COCo 0 c o,,,. C C 0 0 0 U C O .O O U in a,_Uc� Ea 0 0 O It ° m v � 0 o � 0 c 0 `o m U 0 0 d E 0 U a 12 0 O CL K `u O o � m � c o O � �U W � O � d c a o o m �o C 0 O 0 m — ` c c O O O c O p O. 0 ._ > ii - > ii ._ > ii din w OUP OUP U 0 O d d) 0 � Iii T 0 O _p U c 0 o c O O 0 0 � w = c O0 iI O O u O � sao a) O i' C p p o E 3 � og o c U ^� o� m R ij U N 9 O O p c N O o > O c a a p p c o Q p N 01 2 2 0 0 0 O d d) a N � c o. O+L'00 OU 9 6� O' T � 9 O � 3 > U O` 4 a Q C a Q O I p a c N Q) o ° c o � o.o _ 0 �.E �° oc3.000pQ = 3 a p w O Q Erw -Q Ea) U) pr�,�a aU N '�,,.. 3 h U ',, N T O` U o O O 0 O � p 9 00 O -' cc,, IN3acio 2)Ow ao U of 0 0 E o C o O C . E oN 30 3 c o. pp L 0> ,, OL +oaT -o O N C c U Q T` O L O c U o. N O C O- N a C O O E p `O N L a K' p L 31 O C P a C Q m oU p a 3 1. D U O N a) O p w 0` .O O L O O aJ c �N'! u 0 C E N D) a+ D c a Z O N a) o O> 0 0 0 `p N -O O c a) N O` a T U O a T 3o c= 0 ,c v o 0 9 y E 0 p :C a _ 3 0 U^ V^ �o N 6^ p o o o a o x`03 U< 0-oL o na3'�L -00 U¢4 U <z° UU¢'� i U o ca3 O � m� � O O � 0 O O m U d 0 d C E 0 U a v_ k2 Y m O v K u O E 0 n C � m � o° ye > U w� O � lY O O p c N O o > O c a a p p c o Q p N 01 2 2 0 0 0 O d d) T � 9 O � 3 > U O` 4 a Q C a Q O I p a c N Q) o ° c o � o.o _ 0 �.E �° oc3.000pQ = 3 a p w O Q Erw -Q Ea) U) pr�,�a aU N '�,,.. 3 h U ',, N T O` U o O O 0 O � p 9 00 O -' cc,, IN3acio 2)Ow ao U of 0 0 E o C o O C . E oN 30 3 c o. pp L 0> ,, OL +oaT -o O N C c U Q T` O L O c U o. N O C O- N a C O O E p `O N L a K' p L 31 O C P a C Q m oU p a 3 1. D U O N a) O p w 0` .O O L O O aJ c �N'! u 0 C E N D) a+ D c a Z O N a) o O> 0 0 0 `p N -O O c a) N O` a T U O a T 3o c= 0 ,c v o 0 9 y E 0 p :C a _ 3 0 U^ V^ �o N 6^ p o o o a o x`03 U< 0-oL o na3'�L -00 U¢4 U <z° UU¢'� i U o ca3 O � m� � O O � 0 O O m U d 0 d C E 0 U a v_ k2 Y m O v K u O E 0 n C � m � o° ye > U w� O � lY O O1 O -77777-- E a 2 -a 0 0 D 1) cc I E a acs p -0 ij'ijillii�ii 1 V; Q) 2 -.- E N V 0 c Q) c a 0 Q) Oa pa u E c E 2) 0 U 2 Q D a c D O ID 0 co, E (D E c .0 E a "t= (D a) 0 Q) 0 > 2 q) O)o (D -0 -a 0 D ano -a tt: 0 b 0 0 'C, 75 -5 a -5 D 5-01 cc z > 0 0 S 0 2 8 2 f U a -5 E O c -t; x t: - - C 0 a O c U -- a a OC Z5 0 0 > 0)0 Q) -E u E 0 a- 10) E 0 cc, o dc) z -C) c 0 ':: E COP 0 .0 0 0 E a- a) J 0 U Lo ` E c 4 0 E 0 E .0 a 2 0 0 C C > o c, 'b 6 E al 0 O O Ol C t O C, v m v`o a s C O C O O rn C: > T Y 9 i y 9 `oa `oa 3 > 3 > U O U Q aJ.Q O dQ O T N a U C w L p O O O U C � O O Ora c L_ N O N 2.0 C N 'j p 3= ° O) C D O O � C a c N 9 0= O C C C J ` p C C O O 0 0 ° a O N O O O U C N a E a y C `q 4 a N C N c p 4) C N O °_ k c � + O a C N N s 0 U) N E CO �� U da U O'er a `— x-00 O O C O U a o E U O' 6 s N O U 3 0 o p C E £ 0 U c > + 6 N a L N C J J E > �L O UL� O -02 b a ? o Q N 6T�OUQa OCC9 N -p w `. a c o 3 a p) C C C O O) N O 0 a 0 a J O c a c 0 a u 8 t w s a O) c .0 C a O? 0 0°— N +� J C c C O O-° O O O> O c a C a a> >'a O �w N O O Ua p N O '� U 2Z p '� 2�a`� U1 0 U c UL O > T Y 9 i y 9 `oa `oa 3 > 3 > U O U Q aJ.Q O dQ O T N a U C w L p O O O U C � O Ora c L_ N N 2.0 C N 'j p 3= CQo O) C D O O a O a O ° c — U o ° ° a c'p U Q U Q U O u ° o m £ £ - `0 C 0 Q U _ 4) C N O (, O O ° o O a d C O C E W I'.. s 0 O c c �� da U O'er N x-00 Cd a h oz Y L t E U w U a o E U E o ° o 0 o a O m c o o a 0 0 c 0 O CL U O E C � E� O � �a �U W � O � LL� E 0 0 d 0 c O O OI C O O Im U x N Q T 9 O) T � N a N Q c a a a p)o ! a ° mo Q c a 0 6 � N O t � U Eu Qs D) E . 9 O o�a N c a V O) N � °tea —a 5 N o d O) w c 0 � � °a N L ) c gyp° a O- O U �U U) o T c C C3 a o c CL O ° O a O C Q O Q L ° �a ° ° C p a` N a N � Q � I T 4 a c 0 c o Q a p) o Q m ¢ o E `O o ° 0 o 0 m Q c o Q c 0 c 0 0 m L. O N s O E O � c � co of >U W � oa O) c N a N Q c a � T c O N 0) c a Q a C c o Q O N OD L ` L C 2'',. U U° ° O ° O N J C C O C C ° c L C U Q p ° Q O O E.O N a 3 c N p >>. m O o O p L °�E .............. aoo_uOO Euu�uu> °o Eo—oo `) QE c °........ E.`.. Q O O a a C Cl) � '� o) CC N o) a 0 c O o O U N O° C c O U UENUCa a)aa -C o U O` s N c a c O a UO o °- N. cd C'_NV a Cc) U.� Q c p O o........ -oou -°caa =+ o c 0) a N m O 22 (D a ° ,oc01C) a v ° u o ,... a i> o O 0 6 o 0 o .O o .O Q c N 3 O a c 0 a N O Q 9 p m— a U .c N W N U 4% Q C E E W _ °c O O] H E `O o ° 0 o 0 m Q c o Q c 0 c 0 0 m L. O N s O E O � c � co of >U W � oa W C 0 O 6 d K ^ V 41 O a `o O I � � > 0 E 4) Q) U 2 N U Q LZ d OI iLdN Q o vNiQ C= C C L p C _ p 0 N+ 3 N 0 a) C N N O O c p 0 cc Ei —0c o d a U C +- 0 a O O� 0 0 O C p E O O -p 4 0 E X N= C N U „ o + �.3 a 3 o c ID s o o o =+ om:o0- ° - N U 3 o- o O NO N O'o - -Q) 0- 4 C3 0 a% p a) .QE�cN9aNO N C N O s Rp w D X r O -p N N c-0 o a p 3 3 0 o Z 0 + -- U N C ] U a p c N C a N U ^ Q O U a N o C U 0 0 0 H t N O 0 0 O O 2 O a '+ O 3> 3 3 o U, E CC ) 0 0- a 0 ox O0 O. oC 0 O 0 U Q . V 0 C > 3 o c p F 9' E N O- E+ N p a o z, p- o 3 a l o o p y a - m o 01.0 p � V C U E L c O $o�oL3o o . E - p Oc p O N 0 c 0 N 3 N` C O O E Q O N C o -" N N- N- p 0 O .p N O o E -p er L C N L o m o o o C p a N + - c 0 > c O N LL r s 0 + cc 0 E� O v Q o O R u 0) � C 0 c 0 c 0 N t CL 0 v Cc O O � c � E� co o > U w O � O w O i W c 0 O 6 d rc V d a a o o m � c II' O V i i T c 9 U o � o + U O O 0 D �a o E o 0 N Za O � a)>ZO. .. '2N �a c Q a i 3 3 o E c O _p C O <U 0 a) p + o a E o E Q 9 m � rc w 0 0 N Q x D N Q x ��o�oaoro`o o . o+ 0-0'^ o Q) T L a pc c O E 0 0 '+o- UO :Q 0+ `O p 0 0 O O O a) 0 9 0 O--o U 0 a 0 0 a) C C > O Q p 3 C 0 a a O a a a °¢ O N Cl CO 0 N p N-QU) O) O L E c p u a E' 2 = o E D o a 3 +O a�Na)C C N s p a r o 0 o) a 9 oa) Od0... �Eom 0 -3�a�-0 Q c a a LO r C m °c a c 'o o N N 0) N p,w O O a) N 9 p C N N N � O) apj 0 O O p C J T C O a) a) N+ O a a p N E O C R O s O a 0 p O c + -O D C a a t D 3 0-0 0 0 n _O > 6 0 0 0 0 ON- E _m p aai a) Uo V a�a o b a C 3 acpc a 0 op a�-0 (Daoo o 0 _0 X 0 E O C p a O° 0 x O o p O c E O1 O' ° ai a m G p 5 a > p E c r O O W p p O Q) d 0 -ps N-0 6-0 O c,, J o 0 0 (D, 0 0 0 OQ o a) O U p O O + > O E'_ > 0 U O o a 0'> 0 - ciDUEo -a= OO-p x o a E V m- a o ° o 0 ° O c c O m N 0 CL U � w 0 0 a Cl C � O O � � U o O _ x v EN w U \ m °LLB 9 4 O 0 D D o 0 N Za a)>ZO. .. '2N �a c Q LLdNQ Na c _0..___ o ��o�oaoro`o o . o+ 0-0'^ o Q) T L a pc c O E 0 0 '+o- UO :Q 0+ `O p 0 0 O O O a) 0 9 0 O--o U 0 a 0 0 a) C C > O Q p 3 C 0 a a O a a a °¢ O N Cl CO 0 N p N-QU) O) O L E c p u a E' 2 = o E D o a 3 +O a�Na)C C N s p a r o 0 o) a 9 oa) Od0... �Eom 0 -3�a�-0 Q c a a LO r C m °c a c 'o o N N 0) N p,w O O a) N 9 p C N N N � O) apj 0 O O p C J T C O a) a) N+ O a a p N E O C R O s O a 0 p O c + -O D C a a t D 3 0-0 0 0 n _O > 6 0 0 0 0 ON- E _m p aai a) Uo V a�a o b a C 3 acpc a 0 op a�-0 (Daoo o 0 _0 X 0 E O C p a O° 0 x O o p O c E O1 O' ° ai a m G p 5 a > p E c r O O W p p O Q) d 0 -ps N-0 6-0 O c,, J o 0 0 (D, 0 0 0 OQ o a) O U p O O + > O E'_ > 0 U O o a 0'> 0 - ciDUEo -a= OO-p x o a E V m- a o ° o 0 ° O c c O m N 0 CL U � w 0 0 a Cl C � O O � � U o O _ x v EN w U \ m °LLB Ol S t O O d rc V N c a� 0 E � c 0 C O T 9 c p O > c � N > U O Z Q SavOQ O aU a 6 s p N 00 N j 'p C O O] - _ ] m O _> N 't O) O p p a) O a) a) a) OUOC�j N 0OpQU a)=. U O Qo�a�Qa cco °c op n'`o p��....... 0 0 >> 3 CO O p 0. 0.— � O Q .j aQi ° , c a) m E o -o o s ° °- o £ a -° .o o° 0 E Q —° E N E o C -p O o a p E N Q a Q O)C 4) � -p p .p w Ol N C U p -`p 'c O (D c c p c u p E O ° c "' p o-0 -0E (D U ua) oo -OE p)o mac. p c� 0° O o� E O N O p 0 Q c C U '0 OU �� CL a) cU� �in9a 'p p- p'p c a Ti �o° a p c Q c�+.+ E ° OEa - .p m .a 0 u o a_ Q) o 5 . o3 C c N o 0 9 O O O Q � . ............. �Tp°'a0�° cup000°Cpdo`pUoo�5° 5' �'Y —a°) °p a > ua 3 U-0 6 r oo d - er o O Q c( E p 0� O U �°C aE N O N E 0 20 - D O 3 L L Oo p p y o C -0 o a p .j D ai p ° o O O Q N p a U R a O O p � a Cp ... ',,. ,,. E UU U 9 0 m 0 a Ot c Q 0 c 0 O m N a 0 m a 0 m o_ CL o � C � c g o� >U w� O � LL � J T L C a C N N > �.0 a Q) ` 2 0 iL a` vOi Q O i O y C o N O O C 0) O O O C'- L 2 V a U O. f" O O o U C C J N 0 0 U O O C a O a O N O d ,',,, ` C m C 6 E a 0) 0-0-0 U 0 aC L _O LE C o f 0 w N OJ - J L j O >- j O 0 p O 0) o ! U 2 N al OV `0 t o 0-0 c o L O 0 N'� O CO a a 0 E > N � - oo °ai -o°C) . °3 co EEoa Eo �3�0. C O O V O 0)p CL 0 s) o a C 0 Oc -0 O ',,. N C C E 0 U J ,ri a O O - O 3 at E p 'a 0 0 L o w E � E aoo O o N O Q O O ........... ',,.. N 0 N O N C U C N N N C o N o ,� Ou O) L Q C c C Q C C N > a O 0 C c 0 p d v �aJ o p oJ c a o O o E 9 0 o u t 0 O > o 0 > C a Q a05'aO ` Ej °— wc0Esa oou)u )p 6 0, mai ',,. .......... s� O v 0 � N � N m C O C O O OI N 0 0 0 E O N C � O� 0 o� LE>U � o� w� k M � \ \ ( I �!\ \\ � \ - }k /]'\ \E §\} {\ ; ! { -- /±) { y -0 CY in . { \)j { ) *c :r :}{ ) / : )\) /J / D ) ! §!�[ -3 E ® _) � \/ « ( {ax 2! » \\ �2; «5$) */ � 0-C, 0�t0\ \� \��5`� :0 °C,0 - ,ad,« \3 : :§ /e», \ \ \ / \ \�£ E( / {fKJ>�)0 ®o 2 /®{ §)/!�) { { R z ` * \) \ \ : /° )/ \"} « {E /t\ � Cl }i7 / §[ƒ f) / f \ )f)f; f 2 k § ) ro ■ \ :[ \f () 0 11 0 §/ / {\ \\ f\ } }\< : I �!\ \\ � \ - }k /]'\ \E §\} {\ ; ! { -- /±) { y -0 CY in . { \)j { ) *c :r :}{ ) / : )\) /J / D ) ! §!�[ -3 E ® _) � \/ « ( {ax 2! » \\ �2; «5$) */ � 0-C, 0�t0\ \� \��5`� :0 °C,0 - ,ad,« \3 : :§ /e», \ \ \ / \ \�£ E( / {fKJ>�)0 ®o 2 /®{ §)/!�) { { R z ` * \) \ \ : /° )/ \"} « {E /t\ � Cl }i7 / §[ƒ f) / f \ )f)f; f 2 k § ) ro ■ \ :[ \f () 0 11 0 §/ / {\ \\ f\ E 0 0 w 0 vo a� CL Z cC O e� ° Ia��iilI� i, 0) N �m 0 o E G - 1 'I C° 'ya,Ir a c c o U E c 0 v3 i c C L o x 5 O � 0 3 °jOQ � O°7 ao m Nacs o£ o c0 U D ` U C aO 1E y �O O QT U o`p4 O2O o U c O h a�ca °aa °U ° t � oL o m o Q $>—. O c c c r -6 V O N O D T Q d OV° .O O N 0-0 -O U O '^ T Q Q U cc 0 O p o U° w U Q L O.O `.0 ° Y L U 0 0 N U Q a a� o s a` 6 z> dhli ii�� o��o�a°i�Ea °3o CC, CU), m 0co`°o. au) Q °os °o)aEpc a 0 m L c E m° o m °-' OW o a m 3 p -° .� o 0 Opc a ° °J ` E E > ° c 0 0 o)w c o o) pE O O m SLL o - o °E oE �° om D FOO o`oo� `o ax a O L o U U° N o p 0 O U 'C O "O 2 C d .> LL 2 E E a it 0 0) 0 d m c t O 4 W K d C a 0 0 rn O .O O_ b m O 3 '� LL _ 0 QY O - -O C N N 7 a —Do U T o T m 0 C-0 O ° o Q O C O U O 0 V U N p C N m 0 0 + C N ° o °m4a 0 U ° 3 aLL 0 C CL O oU °.9 T O 00 C a) C L C O- C 9 L j O L 0 O) O C O w 0+ O a) p C-0 0 0 0 Q U 0° �n c O j �- O E O c E p O— 0.() O -O O c U O O U 0 (D Q 0 Q t 0 U U C 0 t C L N L 9 _ Off' OQ0 U ` 0._ 3 0 o�,00a 0 m Q0 01 +� N u E O Q O U aea aN -0 tU 0 > Q O N a m- o a 0 a 0 U a U O` Q O N m a) a) a o o a 3+ 0 E r O C E N L p C >'+ o- °oa�o� +U�V o a E ° E o° 4 E° 3 Q=° a) O+ O 0 O— LL Q+ 0 0 x 0> V 0 U] 6 C O O m m +m0O +�-aa) O0`0r Day0p._ac Q Q 0 0 °'� O c U L 0 O U a .V CUT E a) C+ O- m 0 N O a) t Nw a) "O E O L 0 0- m C 0 O a 5 0 3 0 0 a Q 0 e� ma ° m m c O) o a° c 0 i c 0 `o m O Q m U � 0 O O � E C O O 0 co a o� " " -'u W � Y'oa m° 0 a)+O m 0-0 H C C 4 O O 0 0 N 0 c c 9 Q Z' CO O c c -0 U o ° ° o _m0ovo_ 9 c O) a E O c N -OOO 0 a) U C ° CL �0�3' N..... a N O ° C ° O C 0) O U O c O 'C X c7 O 0 c O ELL Y L + 0'',, 6 U,, L O e� ma ° m m c O) o a° c 0 i c 0 `o m O Q m U � 0 O O � E C O O 0 co a o� " " -'u W � Y'oa m° 0 E F44 0 0. owl !jl a) -0 -0 i5 Q) 0 0 > E a �u 'o QO) -,)-.0 E '6 0 :E . 0, o CL Q) � '6 2 D 0 D 0 E 6 0 - - 0 C (D 0 >) 0) 'u 0 1- 0- -0 0 w 0 OC Q).c- u D > 0-, -0 a) D 0 0)L u '-a u U 0 OC u 0 0 () � Q) U C) -0 a) 'To 0 0) Cl c (D o U u --Q a o 0 c - 0 = , - C 0) > > 0 C) C, �U = 75 C) c (D W c 0 0 0 C -� �2-0� a) I E -o o 0 a CL 0 a) - .- _0 x 0 E U-0 (D C3 C 0 0 U - C 0 C) w .5; 0 N 0 0 0 u (D 0-5 u E (D 0 c a) < < o � C) CL _a � c W.- " - a) � - 4) - u 0 c c U .5 0 c > 0 0 (D -0 0 CL E Q>) 0 - 2 cl 0 E 0 -0 — — c 0-0 CL > w 0- E� 0' 0 E 'W2 0 C) Q) 0 0 c a) 2 E: -0 -E 0 a 0 > 0 0 a) CL C3 m a) 0 u L ; 0 6-0 0 oc 5 0) 00 0 c 0 0 0 C) wi5 - U , , , Cl a) a) - -0 � > 0 0 c L o < -5 --o L) -,G y cc m E u 0 a) 0 C3 -0 -0 > E aL2= w -2 1 a Q 0 �: C, IN 0 0 0 a Fj E -0 C3 E -U 76 1 0 x 0 u , -a 4) Q -0 o "C C�-2m c u () 0 _a - w - 0 a x c Cl D c 0 6 0 0 (D 0) U a2 a) T 6-W � 0 - 0- U.-O t '0 -0 6 � 6 . .. ... RIM 9W� 4 0 L CL u E 0 U > u LE t�l v c a� 0 � O O W U N� C x m 0 a) a N� m c� o L c m 3 m L m c C O U 12 o m r T o 0 r a r m 3 3 U m 00 ` c U UJ to N Y > a o 00 Oc p O N N o a 0 N- -0-0 C ay 00, 9.0 V L .rT ° oo -a off. - m3 ' . o O s -O O m a c U c O U a a m a ° o m-0 \G' -b �' o N ° O m a -0 O O j = c L m 3 o a m L d) o o E o` m o a3 T =s o.3U�- yo._wo '-o mm� Nmo-a aE� 5c zo a >omo - D 9 °()- E E o o a) u 3 E as ° °=r c ° _0 °° °) c+ O0-0 d � c U a� _ ° 3_ ` a O°= a° U 3 c m� a o > m O° °- a mQ)a`0-00- La(D 003Ua -a 0) o 0i E -0-0 O m y N L O '^ °U -°O O O O. O CL Q 0 E 5 0-0 o a° O m 0 m U p o o> -O Z c a o T L m m 0 0-- O C m c Q - 03m0-03mo0 C) �'� m o E_ X........... U c a U O m '3 m a `a m c'� Cl O. U-0 m O p E p N Q O m"Q L m U m a a— N-0 N 6 H'o-0. a) 0 c o`° E xmoo�j Na c m o O a c L m m 0 O N 3-oEt`o`—D6 E� R ° m0 o^ c 0 c 0 `o m U N O i E U N 0 a N K O E o^ c^ m� o° .x w� O � E c c) IM"If i Iii o 0 c ql V 0 Ai n C, 0 u a -q-) -OD Qc), 0 0 -Qo) 0 0 u ) E 0- m C) 0 u- Q)- CD u C) ax P 0 r 4) o '-.0 D -0 E Cc'_ -6 — 2 8 —.E o tj a) -a E EP; ()-d a) a 8 u 0 a) 0 -r o CL o E -0 0 a 0> E 0 0 a) E 4 2 -5 u E -6 0 @.E a) 2 0-0 a) 'D 0 --o 0 0 o- q) V X a CL.v D) 0 0 0 0 D c 0 X 0 5-0 01 E Q) 0 E c - -0 a) c Lo x ox 0 'I Al 0— -0-0 (OD jo DO 0 — 6-61 3y -0r0 3: -0 a) 0 0 �: 0 2 0 0 > 1� 2 0-0 o t: > � 2 N 0 u 0 '0- C) 0 o EEC Q) Z; 0-0 u a CL -a c 0 cc (u) E E — o c — (CD US a) 06 0 t o 0 -0 ou cc L) All, -L- n u c oc K) 0 (D 4) - > 0 -p -2 Oo OA--�: u C3 C3 0 -5) D 0 c > 0 0 20 CL a) 0 0 0 U-0 a) .= 0 -0 -6 a) 7b - 0 0 0 - c c E '0--o - , O , H - au - � C3 0 Q) -0 E 0 0-0 3: -a CLL -E 0 0- -C) - 0- D 0-0 0 N - " — a) C b C, t d) - I E � Lo 0 cc, E 6 b c Q) 2 - 0 D'— , � L) a) -0 0) a)! 0 E . c WX C3 �5 0) Q) 07-0 a) > 0— c 0 > > t; a !11 ( p° o > E a) 0 C, 0) 0 > 0 0 u -.E z -00 CL 0 IT E 5- E u, C3 a) :E 0 CL 0 ar a tM 0 0 t-: 7--7- o 0) o Ii IIII -0 7p -aO) -E (D _Q a, ;5 '15 a -0 u °U E L, c 00 0 — -(OD U — D � -0 0 0 2 CoL SD � 0 FEZ 0 (E E Z -2 -a -0 c 0 CD 0 -0 we 0-- a) 0- W < -0 U -00 1) IUD -0 ox, o 0 IUD IC) C 0 E �(D -0 o 0 0 0) c > a) 4u) 0 Q 'a -0 -0 co -P ol 0 E 'E a 0 0 0 4) -0 F4 c 0 IX) Z o -0 a u w u .-.-o 0. L C, 0- is c 0-0 C) a) I 0 0 u -0 -0 0-0--b 0 E a) u U D C n M 0 L 0 0 0 C, 4>) -DO Q�) -0 u -0 0 -0, -0 E -0 6 uo 5 o) c 0 c c > - u -am a) u E c 0 C) -0 0 2 § - , - -0 U C, u 0 o a, 3: --o --O-oc� c Eo-d>)o U Q) 0—'6 a 0 D- -a 0 c C CL 0- o 0 D c) (D (D c E 0 E 0' 0 a < -c -5 E u D a) E -2 ca) -0 o) tn .0 -00 -0 0. o 6) , I 0 E o u o 0 0 E E ' < 0 4) > o c 2-- cl E 0 0 D 0 Q) Q) _0 -0 2 cl -,E 0 O -0 - -6 c o 2 o u d) u w 0 0 0 (D t WE 0 to u -0 < -0 () u M -0 0 < a E 0 o r d air 0 CL _m o c 0 i sa ° a0 ° �o E ° 0 0 m v x ° `o `o a `o s o o y 0 -a 0 3 = 0 � c� Y o a a 0 N N 3 0 Y 0 0 ?t ` 0O NvLLi E-3oO U a000 U ? 'co - s O o -o T O O °E a 6 °5 °o•- a >- ov°o - U v o ......... ca OON a9 a_ 0-0 oa)�yU Oa Oy 0C D -E° o- `o 03 -°'� Ol ° 0-0 v a 0 N Y N E o f -- O o� a a� E a d E E 3 c ° 3- ai >' o o -o o> o g ° c o C E N O LO N 3�� x U c U C,,,,. L w Q O a 0 a) x p 0 0 0 0 3 o _ a o > a Y E a o�'� =� °� ° lu CL v v3 ago ow°'oEc�E000 L +ooEv 0 0 0 3 a c o o a c o'S a'- a a �� a w! o 0 w O O O a x 9 s ` v° oo° a� o ° 0 o 0! a E a c �y00a0O �N�a000soo� om °$L.° ............... Ew_ -- Oavoas� °c°i�Qao.°�D C) op_°o o)a } ....................... a Qo D c> o x> 5'- c 5 E v v U - x N .S N S O O Z Z � Q ,C C u C E °p 9 O a O '........! C w N v 0 L._ , °d m.L C7 � ■ } :; / ® ) :®2 z {:9C)o> FEno y! ;{tzf=:_ °L) a0 &\ �4:y�,,f§ ±®(! /;)a %a® - \[ \ «\ \ �\ \\ \ \\�� } \� \� \\�- ` ` >` {j C, 0 ) {f » \ \ \j)0c)o \ } / \/ el22ff;% „!4) -0 0 atz- f \{` ° /`- ®:!_ «_! §` \36,2 ;:,f! / \7 § -0 ® { \ §\ y > E ®�� °G) /f {)) /) /ƒ\ -E u_00\E $f:0.,0 §0 r{i& §/ ) 0 \\� LE !)\ tm CL // �u\\§\(! !CIEUcDf \7 Bo2ow',«¥t \§ \ /� \ \\ \�\ lug ;U- 0 -0U)E o ! «®: °z 0E / -t!:§ : - {;7§t § \2 o \ \ /\] \\ 0. § \ \® {!:K£E7 ©9 ;i{2t \ / {\±) 0a); - {0222 =! fJ\ } / /f»> \ \ \�)� \ \� \� x222 ° = °00 0 ^i�2oo p`, 0a a1 -1-0 -1 t \\ }\\�\ / \ \ `®``-` }�/ 4)f \:_! _ {o\ \; : }o�) \\D '§E7 / \ \( 2 mQS 0 "0 0 / >U2o /-0 0n u&s2; 0 \\ // » \ID E o :2!\ } })0 \ \ \\ \ \ } \\ \ \u $ \ /\{ c 03: -0 ±® (20a)0aZ\ §f / /±:« /0 §y § u ®«$mf _ \ \ff {\ U CL f -b= a, � � { \ \k\`� \\ z :f §f \ }f28 .� _ cl E / ) CL 0 ()( \ \\ \ \ 0 -j \0 D 3: ƒa C, a -/ ) :iq %E#= { 0 j_f0: : / a§ \/ r ® ƒ)�) ` f§{)§ {7f E/ , , {2ff »2°:. / «£ - \ \( c3 0 )§ 0 : (0 07 �__ \\ _ / s -0 (T 0 uE .� _ cl E / ) CL 0 ()( \ \\ O O d d O a o rn m Ir�i a N m y m O d O ° _m I I,I I�h E I r i a I w N N > a 9 T9 C 3 m mC - a N Q N N O c C) w- 0 Q O a c 0 w 0 N U 0-0 'E 2 QL a _ c C - m e a c 0 " N .> �- oO ' C 'o)--F UO N O a N N a 0 4UTO0E °EuTi-ao -0 o�`acc u la) a Q c N N O a c j 0) �41 'a^ Oj'-° 2- N O"w N w c N Nou0o.'- °-aoa� °o�£aao �ooQn3a n *i rf��i' CQCm OC cm i, Iii Q -a H a O ` -a -5 � O N O aO O CO 6� 000 U c I ° II ° U O L E c a) U C N w L .` '^ Q O Q R Q ° E 0 O . � E a °o c O p Q N O U C ^ w 0 `o ��o'S °pc°i 'ai� ---o c °000 u� s a °x o m 6 m C N 0 0 C'a °° 0 0] C U a`iMEOO��a�oQ�ooc£Ur - �4�Q-oc wC m — V 01 C ao 0 � � c - O N a o) c Q) '^ N a a) N'a O t: a N 0 _N c N 0 N E U o L N N O 0-0- N- L M-0 °o£a£E�p '03 ?- °o - - °oa o - pa°�is �acE' ) -5 ° a'- D - �9 °m3` 3 a -J )-0 Q oopQ N " a° ego ° 50_93° .L-.a :. V a p C j a `p a ° C' U c O O '^ O)T O' N L 9 o E p Q) c o a O° ° Q) a )£ m N J-0 o - a a a OI a o c0 3 -O c a o o c N O a) `a O O O a— N O a) Q J O a0 N> (D aoo p m >00)0- > _or�U° OD-C) O J L E D O C O K 9 4 6 p J a N� m° O)U� N N¢ c o)o E... a) °�`a°¢oo Na - O > 3,(D °)gip >� 0 c3 ° a) c 3 O a O 5 c c ) E ? 0 J a °° O a O - � c N O c N6 p �0 ° a p a E a - a D) OJ O N O 3 a N C_ Q) ° C c ° a p O c a C p E > s O >3a 3 '°B > '. O O ° r aa > a Q� � o m m 3 ' a s uc 5> 5 o o U E O ? ? aw ° 9 a-0 O O L p� mo p N Of � O O � C O C O O OI 0 m u � v 0 0 a` E O E °n O � � U c o w C v ¢ x O� m � U' E � 0 `o z� mD 60 m V4i''tiill ° a d a � o C U C C U C <f . EO N I) O O m I I) I oI � c w F a o ^v C3)o 0o 0) 3 a c a c c$ om as c 0 c as c r 6 N L N 'a r, C c ( O ' o u ° a r o o * ° cu) ao i'jI Sao ° ¢2 @mc) 6 Cc c 0 o E c cc > u u 1 a U o a s ° N Q (iI FiI'I'I �. L° N m -a C N N •� Q O O 4 O N (Ii j. 3 JON Ua�O °C C 9� 'ryj4 II iII o Q`cN1&°co�ao3�imc°i 'oo N N iiii � j'srn o'i a V I $x� (i � "I ! { tiI I � �iiii . j o a L N 3 w QO j r � o Q U p ° N o O O Z ° m m -0 C) -0 U O ''N N o ° m I! ° u ° � m a U v v 0 6 Q N m°o ° a aui u a 9 E 0 c auto V "° °`°o'o uO a 3 L C Y o o - ,Ip ^.kI o o E-a 2-0 ° o Q ao E s� `oa�a�UEo _ E3 o E .o00 ° _ ) u ' 0 o°- o o o � mom c .6 D o 3 ' E v o, 2 a o o C c � � k \ / /) /Z /\{ {affE ; \37f : 77 /0Z{{ = ( ! Q) a) E a) aU t)0 C D \ \ � ) \.C- \\ \ \\\ \ Tu 0: �;) / \ \y§ {, E2 Q) .E-a) z2 /fac).9< - E§eeaEf§.; 2 a < -0 ) \ ; OF U vi D o cl } \0 §/ / \§ \ \� //( c D- o D- §3 {\ /- \! \ `0 \>�E -0z _ g \! / ;\} 00 - -0 d) /� \ \ \) \\ \\ 0 £ §f //\/{ § §) =% *D 1 °D0 ; \ \�� \\ %\ \) \\ \) \) / /) /Z /\{ {affE ; \37f : 77 /0Z{{ = ( ! Q) a) E a) aU t)0 C D \ \ � ) \.C- \\ \ \\\ \ Tu 0: �;) / \ \y§ {, E2 Q) .E-a) z2 /fac).9< - E§eeaEf§.; 2 a < -0 ) \ ; OF U vi D o cl } \0 §/ / \§ \ \� //( 0 9 � O d F e a 0 R W m c O 0 O 9 C) L 5 U L �0 0 O 3 Q o II O) O c L 3 0: C N O oa>a O 00 C N + O > �p N o $0 o ° � a N ° `p -Q 0 O O U a o > c O -0 Q Q m Q -o O 0 O o 0 0.0 -u _ c o °a 6 E U O O 0 � L N a + m O U o m I T Q U C O U o 00. 0 U N 6 ° o o Et 0 0 a !C L o E o oO 2 N ° O d C O C O O Qr O CL N V � N a O a c 0 E o^ o U C p w Q y O d a a a I a m> a> o> m> C O c O !. c 0 ! c 0 ._ -oa _ aQ ._ -oQ ._ 'aQ C Q C, m Q m 0, Q O m Q O m Q O ttL O N a E c0 O .� L 0 a 0 0 U C O ^� N O O 0 0� p) 5603 Ica '13�c s O0 00 4) 0-0 T O 9 N M D- o ate ��I u�OC p)p +�NEO 0 0 -0 U O 0 0 I',r� a�a'o ° 0 0 0 O -p p -O 4 ' c0 0 U 0 C j '0 O 0 0 C3 a p O 0 E C p 0 p> -p U + p C U U00 OO oa -0 (o ooO°' Ua. �+ O. O)x U O C O t 't U 0+ 0,� 0 E QI C OI N O) 0 3 > 0\° O) C C C Q T° N c a 0 D c + U M 0 0 '.,. Pi 0 -0 j N i 0 E v1 0 'X 6 Y' n 0 a m Y �.Ui O a Q''., Y O 0 '!. X O 0 'm a o > c O -0 Q Q m Q -o O 0 O o 0 0.0 -u _ c o °a 6 E U O O 0 � L N a + m O U o m I T Q U C O U o 00. 0 U N 6 ° o o Et 0 0 a !C L o E o oO 2 N ° O d C O C O O Qr O CL N V � N a O a c 0 E o^ o U C p w Q y O d W O y :.a a �, a a I a a m m> o>> m> ! m> m> V : c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 O C J Q C .J °- c m Q C . J °- C .= Q C O mQ O mQ O,Q 0 O:mQ A N O O a > r O N E_Q C C C C N Q C .] O t-! c N O O O O o > amp °)�., O'= r� Ni a ai p_j x-E 30� 3 ° o ° O Rot-, N QC O N C O O L- L N O a m E o 0 0.°' o '3 ID m Lv°i ° .9 E O 0 O ° a) U d E' O O^ c > oaa°o a` Qo oo� a°°- a0 r °3 oso lE� rm sa I�a�o 0o r a°E v °o ° o a Q L T O N O 0 0 ooaoE....�`m '....o> ° -> 11,009 °3 a,u6aa� -� 0�� DQ 2 Q J ° N ° « E y j c 0 0 L 4) - 0 0 0 6° j E o 0 0 6 ° O O D) O x U E`o mI o a ° ° �° c 0Z)° mod lava cat .-0 (D `o l 75 ° 3 c 3 -o 'gCR O N -O °p O 'O 9 N N ID O aoi Jo�^ y U _ 3 Q i a m -2 0 p 0 O l N O YN ° D- D .O E 0 m o O P d N m v O � C O E C O O Qt CL � m 'Iv 0 0 a E c 0 ovm U o0 x W Y O a m LL 0 w o a � c 0 `W m° A a� ma 0 my m 0 a 0 m N t CL v O O d � 0 E o^ E v� U c o Q d m Lz- (D `m 3 E - D R' a- bg o,,.. mQ 0 mQ Q)oN N C! O U Ol O a.� O) O > W2 U N 01 > ca z '.. C O -c o. a) O 6 N U ba ba o m'¢ o'..,ma 0 3'0 0- c -° 0 o a O O U h C p 0im'¢ 2 C O V __. C Q U p Ol N O O 0 O N - Co - O x QL 0 O ii �Ia, o. 0 Q� O O N O 0 3 Y O C Q O N O N a O U N 0 4 O ,,, d CL U > 020 o 3 a Lro a o `o 3 c 3 T,, O O N ai -o C ai a 0 w c 0, -a w p � Q c L m 0 N O C � U O > of m3 0 3 0 c r _ N t N O aQ oQ p C a� ma 0 my m 0 a 0 m N t CL v O O d � 0 E o^ E v� U c o Q d m Lz- (D `m 3 E - D 9 a- bg o,,.. mQ 0 mQ Q)oN N C! O U I a 3 > a.� > W2 U N 01 > z '.. C O a) O 6 N U ba a� ma 0 my m 0 a 0 m N t CL v O O d � 0 E o^ E v� U c o Q d m Lz- (D D 9 a- bg o,,.. mQ 0 mQ Q)oN 'a, E N O L p O U I a 3 > a.� > W2 U N 01 > z '.. C O a) O C O N U ba ba C 0 3'0 0- c -° 0 o a 0 3 o m¢ 0im'¢ 2 U O O O z __. C o U p Ol N O O Q O N - Co - p 2 o E EO E Y Q� O O N C O U O C Q O N a O U t N 0 4 O ,,, N Q Qxo'E `off T,, O ai -o 0 ° '�'! ai a w c 0, -a 0 0 U O U c 3 c O aQ oQ > U � w o N U V o 2 > Q N 2 O 9p p u C j 3c... coi3m a b O p 0 N w O � C N a� ma 0 my m 0 a 0 m N t CL v O O d � 0 E o^ E v� U c o Q d m Lz- (D a- bg o,,.. mQ 0 mQ Q)oN 'a, E N O L p O U I a 3 > a.� W2 U N z a) O p 30 N N U y Q l C 0 3'0 0- c -° 0 o a 0 3 2 x 2 U O O O z o U p Ol N O N O)_O O Co - p 2 9 O 9 O 'c Q > Y a� ma 0 my m 0 a 0 m N t CL v O O d � 0 E o^ E v� U c o Q d m Lz- (D E 0 m 0 6 C O CL d K v 0 O 0) � c O Z c c 2 0 AA-0 a T ._ 0) VUZ�� o ° a n mv O 0 f 0 0 m G u v 0 It E E E u a v m 0 n v u E E o^ c^ E� �x W'U � O � S C7 9 9 � o,',,, O) O 0) O 0) mQ O ',mQ O',mQ O C O Y O U+ C C U w c c E O w ° O 0 0 3 O u 0 3 U c v c a a 6° 0— ° `— o v N N O O N c— U a C 0 9 3 O) U Q O v v 0) ',,, a OU .c ) N amo)�o� 3 0 0 0 O a E N � > O ° v c., m 6-0 °N Q) L3Q) ta) () o° •- j a) -a c 0 i oc .Uc � o ° .. .. o � D c (pp - -o ^ mJ U a 0- V E V oQ O UO O Q) o D 0 a 2 2 ............. E °a +U — � oova a ..................... O 0— 00 U 0 :E o)p_L °c)0aUi °p'o 0 D °) D. N cl D N E C O O — C U 5 O) t C 4 0 0 c N N o t c? U 0 0 > w U-0 C 0 00 U 0 o ° a n mv O 0 f 0 0 m G u v 0 It E E E u a v m 0 n v u E E o^ c^ E� �x W'U � O � S C7 0 E a ms p 0 c O _m i i , a C O a a j a c m< O L O w L -p O N U w O a) o _E Q) � _ _ o O ,',, -0 m O 'u E o T °� C 2 a 5 w d o c �a6- E o -°c.a u ° v voa 30 ' °- >, 0 j003�� J m ° -0 a� xl U C p 0 6 p 3 .E O a 0. 0 O o `p O C O 0 0 0 T v Z c p U U N E '- O o._ moon 0- Um c N o O au o a) -p `a,,'. ma o-0 oa � -°p °o 5� �EUDv: °pQ� v u S aov -°°o� -° c° " Q E c 6 v J o s c w ° C ° c v .O N „ > v U n O- U O > U N O a) a 6 o Z' OC `) E T U Q'� ° O � 0 N O O U O O a O C 01j � §/ \5 /\ � \\ :» f) lip \\ ( ) §\ } CL 0 CL \ Iu /f( \> GEE o CL .0 \ D 5)S 2» < : ,2» . : . §\ } CL 0 CL \ Iu /f( GEE o CL .0 \ D 5)S `{ %§a \ \� \ \\ {\ )i) o f -/\ \- \ \�� \)f o {\ 0 0 c \\ \ \t {220 2 Q) Q { o 30 FC3C) \{:f \\ {{ ;,Ka! Cl 2 }$E } » »E_ ;20 324:»af> §\ } CL 0 CL \ Iu /f( o CL .0 `{ 0 \ \� \ \\ o \)f {\ 0 c c- \ \t 30 FC3C) §\ } CL 0 CL \ Iu /f( 0 :E 0 0. 0 0 .2 B .0 ;m 17 0 E u E 0 \\ /L Cl \ \ \� \ � \ 0 2 ID ID 0 21-0, f � c -�- u u 0 q) o 0 Do 2 < u 2 0 0 0- 0 2 E aw) .0 0 0 0 0 > E 'o 0 \ \ \ }\ } /\ /� u �1101 0 tT '5 a 2 �5 w io a)- 0 C? U, WE 0, u a D 0 Co 0- E E -002§ t o a I E ) -0 0 —.0 -0 D U 0 -Q)' < o 0 D .0 -0 »a a ) \ a ac ) 0 D C3 LE 0 E < U < 0 - m 0 0 i5 'c 6,6 E Ou cj -6 LT (D