HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 059-18RESOLUTION NO. )Q 5 9 - 18
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING SECTION
15091 FINDINGS AND SECTION 15093 STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING MITIGATION
MEASURE REPORTING PLAN FOR THE "MAKING DOWNTOWN
BAKERSFIELD HIGH-SPEED RAIL STATION AREA VISION PLAN."
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield is proposing a "High -Speed Rail Station Area
Vision Plan" that establishes a strategic vision for the future development of the area
surrounding the future High Speed Rail Station in Downtown Bakersfield. The Project
addresses key factors affecting future development within the Project area, including,
but not limited to: land use patterns in the context of the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan; urban design and infrastructure; multi -modal transportation services and
circulation; parking, pedestrian and bicycle access; open space and recreation; and
other principal factors. The Project establishes a conceptual phased approach to future
physical development, including a long-term (30 -year) development projection which
would include up to: 2,005,000 square feet of office space, 8,570 residential units;
906,988 square feet of retail; and 2,413 hotel rooms (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, after considering public comments received at a public hearing on
the proposed Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Project, the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 5:15 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the
time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the EIR and
Project and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of
the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony,
and evidence concerning the staff report, FIR and the Planning Commission's
deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 the Lead Agency
(City of Bakersfield) shall certify that:
(a) The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
(b) The FIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency
and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the EIR prior to approving the project; and
(c) The EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and
40�kF9
Page 1 of 4 T
m
o
ORIGINAL
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Community Development Department (1715
Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other
materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the "Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation
Measures," attached as Exhibit "A," are appropriate and incorporated into the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the "Statement of Overriding Considerations," attached as Exhibit "B,"
are appropriate and incorporated into the Project; and
WHEREAS, the "Mitigation Measures, Monitoring and Reporting Plan," attached
as Exhibit "C," is incorporated into the Project; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and the Final EIR, proceedings before the City Council, and evidence received
both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support
the following findings:
1. All required public notices have been given. A hearing notice regarding
the Project was published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local
newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.
2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff
determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA. An environmental
impact report was prepared and properly noticed for public review.
3. In accordance with CEQA, staff prepared an environmental impact
report, and mitigation measures relating to those impacts were identified
and have been incorporated into the Project, and the adopted
Mitigation Measure Reporting Plan, as set forth in Exhibit "C", specifies the
required steps to satisfy each mitigation measure.
4. This project is recommended for approval despite the existence of certain
significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, and the City Council
makes and adopts the findings with respect to each as set forth in Exhibit
"A", pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,
Administrative Code) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code
and declares that it considered the evidence described in connection
with each finding and that such evidence is substantial and supports such
finding.
This Commission acknowledges that approval of this project will produce
certain environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and, in
accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14,
Administrative Code) hereby recommends the City Council adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit "B", which
summarizes the reasons why this project, despite certain environmental
impacts, has been approved.
yAKF9
Page 2 of 4 ? T
n
5
,niGNAL
5. The EIR is the appropriate environmental document to accompany
approval of the Project. The effect upon the environment of the Project
and related activities will not interfere with maintenance of a high quality
environment now or in the future. There is no feasible way to lesson or
avoid identified environmental impacts and these impacts have been
found to be acceptable and expected benefits from the project
outweigh the identified significant environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE li RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the following is
found:
(a) The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
(b) The EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead
Agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered
the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the project;
and
(c) The EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and
analysis.
The EIR for the Project is hereby certified.
The Project is subject to mitigation measures, monitoring and reporting
plan found in Exhibit "C", and located on the map as shown in Exhibit " D",
both of which are incorporated herein.
5. There is no feasible mitigation to fully mitigate all identified impacts from
traffic and noise, therefore, impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is hereby
adopted.
Page 3 of 4 e��F
m
J G
(1P1(,Ipi AI
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
CouHAY O 2010e City of Bakersfield of a regular meeting thereof held on
by the following vote:
V' -
AYES:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: GONZALES, WEIR, -SWI -1, FREEMAN, SULLIVAN, PARLIER
NOES'. COUNCILMEMBER'.
ABSTAIN'. COUNCILMEMBER'. _
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER'.
CHRISTOPHER ERRY
Acting CITY CLERK and Ex Officio
Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED MAY O 9 2010
KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Atto y
By:
ANDREW HEGLUND
Deputy City Attorney
ExhlbBs (attached):
Exhibit A: Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings and Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C: Mitigation Measures, Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Exhibit D: Location Map
CG-SAHigh Speed Rail\ HSR Stator, Area Plan \SAP Public Hearn, PC and CC\CC 5.9, 18 SAP e EIR\RES CC ENV Resolution SAP
EIR - ah re,d.,x
Page 4 of 4 oev'N�F9s
m
v0
(a1dIG;NAL
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
For
MAKING DOWNTOWN BAKERSFIELD HIGH SPEED RAIL STATION AREA VISION
PLAN PROSECT
Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 2016081071)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield
Community Development Department
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
The following findings of fact are based in part on the information contained in the Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Report (Final FIR) for the Making Downtown Bakersfield Station
Area Vision Plan Project ("project'), as well as additional facts found in the complete record of
proceedings. The Final FIR is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review at the
City of Bakersfield Community Development Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield,
California 93301, during normal business hours.
SECTION II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROSECT
City of Bakersfield Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report on August 29, 2016. Based on the Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation, a determination was made that the Final FIR would contain a comprehensive
analysis of all environmental issues, identified in Appendix G of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. With respect to all impacts identified as `less than significant'
or as having "no impact' in the Final EIR, the Bakersfield City Council finds that those impacts
have been described accurately and are less than significant or have no impact as so described in
the Final FIR, as follows:
Despite concluding that certain impacts would be less than significant or would have no impact,
the Final EIR nonetheless incorporated mitigation measures to comply with the goals, policies,
and implementation measures of the City General Plan and other adopted regulations. The
Bakersfield City Council finds that these effects are less than significant or have no impact before
and after implementation of these mitigation measures.
Findings of Fact -Section 15091 I May 9, 2018
Maing Downtown Bakersfield Pryeu Bakersfield Cary Council
? gAnFaF
� m
� o
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
1. AESTHETICS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact AES -1 The Project would facilitate changes to the visual character of the Project area, but
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project area and its
surroundings.
Impact AES -2 The Project would result in new sources of light and glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area but these new sources would not substantially increase the
amount of light and glare for sensitive receptors such as residences in the already urbanized Project
area, and would be regulated by the City's Municipal Code.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
A Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Project That Will Have a Less Than
Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment
The project will not contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts.
2. AIR QUALITY
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found To Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact AQ -2 The Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation.
Impact AQ -4 The Project will increase traffic along all studied roadway segments, however,
increased traffic would not result in the creation of carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots.
Impact AQ -5 The Project will not create objectionable odors that would affect neighboring
properties.
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 2 May 9, 2016
Making Downtown Bakersfield Ryea Bakersfield Cfry Counoll O 0A�F9
n
J
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
Impact AQ -6 The Project will have a less than significant impact to regional air quality and
would not cause the regional population to exceed Kem COG population projections.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
Significant Effect
Impact AQ -1 The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan. Construction activities associated with the Project would result in the temporary
generation of air pollutants during construction which would affect local air quality.
Description of Soeeific Impact
The significance of daily emissions, particularly ROG and NOX emissions, generated by
construction equipment would depend on the type and quantity of equipment used and the hours
of operation. The amount of ROG emissions generated by oil-based substances such as asphalt is
dependent upon the type and amount of asphalt utilized. In addition, impacts related to odors
associated with oil -base substances and asphalt are dependent upon the proximity of construction
activities to sensitive receptors. The significance of fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions
would depend upon the following factors: (1) the aerial extent of disturbed soils; (2) the length of
disturbance time; (3) whether existing structures are demolished; (4) whether excavation is
involved; and (5) whether transport of excavated materials offsite is necessary.
Finding
Project impacts caused by air pollutant emissions that would conflict with the implementation of
applicable air quality plans will be reduced to levels that would not obstruct the implementation
of any San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District plans or regulatory standards. All
feasible and reasonable changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project that substantially lessen the potentially significant effects identified in the EIR.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact AQ -l. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM AQ -1 Control Measures for Construction Emissions. Prior to the issuance of
gradingJbuilding permits for individual projects, project proponents shall demonstrate to the City
of Bakersfield that they have obtained all required permits from the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD); and that all construction activities will continuously
comply with applicable regulatory standards; including, but not limited to SJVAPCD Regulation
VIII, Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10. If it is determined that air quality
impacts are found to be significant even after complying with District Rules 9510 and 9410,
project proponents shall be directed to enter into a VERA or other equal and feasible mitigation
prior to the start of the first project activity generating emissions.
Findings of Fact - Si,n ion 15091 3 May 9, 2018
Making Do.ntow Bukersfield Pmiect Bakersfield City Council
p46A�F9
s
OPIG NAL
EXHIBIT A
Sienificant Effect:
Impact AQ -3 The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Project development would place new residential and commercial uses in close
proximity to major roadways and railways, which generate high levels of diesel particulate
matter, atoxic air contaminant.
Description of Specific Impact:
Diesel particulate matter is classified as the primary airborne carcinogen in the State. CARB
reports that diesel particulate matter represents about 70 percent of the potential cancer risk from
vehicle travel on a typical urban freeway. The significance threshold for long-term public health
risk is set at 10 excess cancer cases in a million for cancer risk. For non -cancer risk (i.e, chronic
or acute risk), the significance level is set at a hazard index of greater than 1.0. If a formal health
risk assessment results in a significant impact, mitigation measures to reduce the predicted levels
of toxic air pollutants from the facility to a level of insignificance may be imposed by the lead
agency. In addition, diesel exhaust has a distinct odor, which is primarily a result of hydrocarbons
and aldehydes contained in diesel fuel. In addition to the health risks associated with diesel
exhaust, the odors associated with diesel exhaust could be a nuisance to nearby receptors.
Findine
Although the precise location and density of a compact growth pattern development is not known
at this time, the Project may result in new sensitive receptors close to existing and new hazardous
air pollutant sources, such as Highways 178 and 204, and the High -Speed Rail Station, potentially
resulting in the exposure to substantial hazardous air pollutant concentrations and nuisance odors.
Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact AQ -3. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM AQ -3 Health Risk Reduction Measures. Prior to the issuance of grading/building permits
for individual projects, project proponents shall demonstrate to the City of Bakersfield that a
project -specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) has been prepared for any project siting new
occupants within 500 feet of a freeway or urban road with 100,000 vehicles/day, or new a
stationary source polluter. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment
requirements. The HRA shall identify specific measures to reduce health risks, such as the
following:
a. Maintain a 50 -foot buffer between sensitive uses and a typical gas dispensing facility (under
3.6 million gallons of gas per year);
b. Do not locate sensitive receptors near distribution centers' entry and exit points;
a Do not locate sensitive receptors in the same building as perchloroethylene dry cleaning
facilities;
d. Locate structures and outdoor living areas for sensitive uses as far as possible from the source
of emissions. As feasible, locate doors, outdoor living areas, and air intake vents primarily on
Findings of Fact - Section 15091
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project
May 9, 2018
Bakersfield Ciry Council
o40�yF9
T
m
v LORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
the side of the building away from the freeway or other pollution source. As feasible,
incorporate dense, tiered vegetation that regains foliage year around and has a long life span
between the pollution source and the project;
e. Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating and ventilation (HV)
system or other air take system in the building, or in each individual residential unit, that
meets the efficiency standard of the MERV 13 (or higher, if required, to reduce interior
pollutant levels). The HV system should include the following features: Installation of a high
efficiency filter and/or carbon filter -to -filter particulates and other chemical matter from
entering the building. Either HEPA filters or ASHRAE 85% supply filters should be used.
Ongoing maintenance should occur;
f. Achieve a performance standard of at least one air exchange per hour of fresh outside filtered
air; and
g. Achieve a performance standard of at least 4 air exchanges per hour of recirculation. Achieve
a performance standard of 0.25 air exchanges per hour of in unfiltered infiltration if the
building is not positively pressurized.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Sienificant Effect:
The project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.
Description of Specific Impact:
There is a potential for future regional development to exceed population forecasts, resulting in
levels of air pollution not sufficiently addressed through basin -wide measures. Therefore,
regional air quality impacts due to cumulative development would be potentially significant.
However, as discussed under Impact AQ -6, the Project would not result in population growth
exceeding regional forecasts, and, as discussed under Impact AQ -2, the Project would be required
to comply with rules and regulations set forth by the SIVAPCD to mitigate emissions and would
reduce vehicle trips associated with the Project area. Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant long-term impact to regional air quality and would not substantially contribute to
cumulative impacts to regional air quality.
Finding
Cumulative regional development may also contribute to the exposure of sensitive receptors to
high levels of toxic air contaminants, such as diesel particulate matter, by increasing traffic on
major roadways, for example. Thus, cumulative development in the region may result in
significant impacts related to localized pollutant exposure. However, although new development
in the Project area would increase the number of people traveling to, from, and within the Project
area, the Project is expected to reduce vehicle trips associated with the Project area. In addition,
Mitigation Measure AQ -3 would require new development in the Project area situated new major
Findings of Fect -Smnou 15091
Making Downmwn Bakersfield Pra,w
May 9, 2018
pakersfield Cu, Council
OFg�K�9J'
r
� n
J p
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
pollutant sources to perform HRAs and incorporate health -risk reduction measures as needed.
Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts
related to localized pollutant exposure.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the F'ndine:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by cumulative impacts related to localized pollutant exposure.
Mitigation Measure AQ -3, listed above, will be incorporated into the project to reduce this impact
to not be cumulatively considerable.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
Significant Effect:
Impact BIO -1 The project would impact special -status animal species.
Description of Specific Impact:
Eighteen special -status animal species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the
Project site. Of those, a total of four were determined to have some potential to occur within or
adjacent to the Project area: western pond turtle, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and San
Joaquin kit fox. None of these species would be expected to inhabit the urban portions of the
Project area due to a lack of natural habitat.
Findin :
Under the appropriate suite of environmental conditions, the study area includes suitable habitat
to support the western pond turtle, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and San Joaquin kit fox —
even though it is low quality habitat.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact Bio -1. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
Findings or Fact-Sect15091
Making pow tour Btd crsfield Project
May 9.2018
Bakersfield City Council
�40�sF9
T
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
MM BIO -1.1 Site Speck Biological Resources Assessment. Prior to the issuance of
grading(building permits for individual projects, project proponents shall demonstrate to the City
of Bakersfield that a site-specific biological survey has been completed by a California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) approved biologist, which assesses the specific project
site for the presence of suitable habitat for burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and San Joaquin kit
fox. Survey protocol shall be recommended by the CDFW. Developers shall be subject to the
mitigation measures recommended by the biologist. Copies of the survey shall be provided to the
Community Development Department, CDFW, and the USFWS prior to ground disturbance.
MM BIO -1.2 On -Going Activities. All construction activities shall continuously comply with
the requirements of the MBHCP or future HCP best management practices and/or mitigation in
conformance with the City's Incidental Take Permit and latest guidance for the species/habitat
identified on site. The current MBHCP urban development incidental take permit expires on
September 1, 2019. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval,
or building permit and pay fees prior to the September expiration date. As determined by the City
of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan
approval, or building permit before the expiration date would be eligible to pay fees under the
current MBHCP incidental take permit. Early payment or pre -payment of MBHCP fees shall not
be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms
of the MBHCP incidental take permit. Urban development permits issued after the expiration date
may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to
comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact CR -4 The Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries.
Findinrs of Fact -Section 15x91
MAeo, Downtown Bskersticld Noject
May 9, 2018
Bskersficld City Council
e�;fF9
r
� m
J
/1RIOINAL
EXHIBIT A
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
Significant Effect
Impact CR -I The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource.
Descriotion of Suecific broad
Several known significant historical resources are located within the Project area. Development
proposed by the Plan would occur in areas containing existing buildings. For properties with an
identified or potentially eligible resource, changes to building exteriors or demolition of buildings
could result in impacts to historic resources.
Finding
The City of Bakersfield's General Plan and municipal code includes policies regarding the
designation of historic resources and their protection, but does not establish requirements for
conducting cultural resource studies. With required adherence to these existing policies and
regulations and with the addition of the mitigation measures below, impacts would less than
significant.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact CR -I. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM CR -1 Site Specific Historical Resources Assessment. Prior to the issuance of
grading1building permits for construction activities that have the potential to affect a historical
resource, project proponents shall demonstrate to the City of Bakersfield that they have obtained
a historical resources assessment by an architectural historian or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or
history. The assessment shall include a reconnaissance -level and/or intensive -level survey in
accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to identify any
previously unrecorded potential historical resources that may be potentially affected by the
Project. Pursuant to the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, potential historical
resources shall be evaluated under current guidelines. If significant historical resources are
identified within a project site, compliance with the Standards and/or avoidance shall be followed
and appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken.
Significant Effect:
Impact CR -2 The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource due to ground disturbance associated with new construction.
Finding of Fad- Section 15091
Making Downtown Bakersfield PMed
May 9, 2018
Bakersfield City Council
EXHIBIT A
Description of Soecific Impact:
The vast majority of the Project area, where new or more intense development could be facilitated
by the Project, has been disturbed by previous development over many decades. Therefore,
archeological resources that may have existed at or near the surface have likely been disturbed by
past development. As a result, the uppermost sediments are not likely to contain archeological
resources. However, given the well-documented occupation of the area by indigenous tribes and
others both prehistorically and historically, there is a reasonable potential that development
occurring under the Plan could take place on sites with archaeological resources.
Finding
Effects on archeological resources are only knowable once a specific project has been proposed,
because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the
characteristics of the proposed ground -disturbing activity. Projects that include ground
disturbance would be required to undergo project -specific review by the City that would include
CEQA review where appropriate and, if warranted, archaeological resources investigations and
mitigation programs.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact CR -2. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM CR -2.1 Site Specific Archaeological Resources Assessment. Prior to the issuance of
grading(building permits for construction activities that have the potential to affect an
archaeologically sensitive area, project proponents shall demonstrate to the City of Bakersfield
that they have obtained an archaeological resources assessment (Phase I) performed under the
supervision of an archaeologist that meets the PQS in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.
The assessment shall include the following:
a. A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search at the
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) at California State University,
Bakersfield. The records search shall determine if the proposed project area has been
previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of
previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been
recorded and/or evaluated.
b. A search of the Sacred Lands File maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC).
c. A pedestrian survey for undeveloped project areas to locate any surface cultural materials.
d. Archaeologist classification of the project area as having high, medium, or low sensitivity for
archaeological resources. To include recommendations for additional studies if
archaeological resources are identified within any project site. These studies may include a
Phase 11 testing and evaluation investigation. If resources determined significant or unique
through Phase II testing and evaluation, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-
specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These mitigation measures
may include but not be limited to a Phase III data recovery program, archival research,
development of a scholarly work, and public outreach or other appropriate actions to be
Findings of Fact - Section 15091
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project
May 9. 2018
Bakersfield City Counml
of eAFF9iP
'U
naICIMNA4.
W■
determined by a qualified archaeologist. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples should
occur as specified by the archaeologist.
MM CR -2.2 Archaeological Sensitivity Training. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the
project proponent shall demonstrate to the City of Bakersfield that cultural resource training has
been provided by a qualified archaeologist, to personnel associated with the grading and
construction activities on the importance of the potential cultural and archaeological resources
(i.e. archaeological sites, artifacts, features, burials, human remains, etc.) that may be encountered
during site preparation activities, how to identify those resources in the field, and of the
regulatory protections afforded to those resources.
Significant Effect:
Impact CR -3 The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature of paleontological or cultural value.
Description of Specific Impact:
Construction of the Project would involve surface excavation. These activities have the potential
to unearth and/or impact potentially significant paleontological resources if the depth of
disturbance exceeds 5 feet below ground surface. Paleontological sensitivity refers to the
potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Direct impacts to
paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities, such as grading or trenching, cut into
the geologic deposits (formations) within which fossils are buried and physically destroy the
fossils. Since fossils are the remains of prehistoric animal and plant life, they are considered to be
nonrenewable. Sensitivity is determined by rock type, past history of the geologic unit in
producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit.
Finding:
Pleistocene -aged deposits in the subsurface of the Project site have the potential to yield
scientifically significant fossils. The University of California Museum of Paleontology
collections database includes four Pleistocene -aged localities from geologic units similar to those
found in the subsurface of the Project area in Kent County. Pleistocene alluvial deposits have
yielded numerous scientifically significant fossils from throughout California and these types of
deposits are generally considered to have high paleontological sensitivity wherever they occur
(Agenbroad 2003; Macias et al. 2014; Springer et al. 2009). If paleontological resources are
identified during construction, impacts would be potentially significant unless mitigation is
incorporated.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CBQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact CR -3. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM CR -3.1 Site Specific Paleontological Resources Assessment. Prior to initial ground
disturbance in a potentially paleontologically sensitive area, project proponents shall demonstrate
to the City of Bakersfield that they have retained a project paleontologist, who meets the SVP
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 10 May 9, 2018
Making Daontow Bakeraficld Project Bakersfield City Council
U C
OPI .INAL
EXHIBIT A
standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist (SVP, 2010), to direct all mitigation measures
related to paleontological resources.
MM CR -3.2 Site Specific Paleontological Monitoring. Project proponents shall continuously
comply with the following during construction activities within potentially paleontologically
sensitive areas:
a. Excavations exceeding five feet in depth in previously undisturbed sediments (i.e,
approximately below the younger surficial deposits) shall be monitored on a full-time basis
by a qualified paleontological monitor, working under the direction of a paleontologist who
meets the SVP standards for Qualified Professional Paleontologist (SVP 2010), to direct all
mitigation measures related to paleontological resources, during initial ground disturbance.
Ground disturbing activity that does not exceed five feet in depth or occurs in previously
disturbed sediments at any depth shall not require paleontological monitoring. If the project
paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, he or she may
recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Before
ground disturbance activities, the Community Development Department shall be notified if
excavations exceed five feet in depth.
b. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor or project paleontologist shall recover
them using standard field methods. If necessary, the paleontologist shall have the authority to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be
removed in a safe and timely manner. Once salvaged, fossils shall be identified to the lowest
possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific
institution with a permanent paleontological collection, along with all pertinent field notes,
photos, data, and maps.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Significant
Impact on the Environment.
None.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact GEO-1. The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning map.
Findings of Fact - Scction 15091 I I May 9, 2018
Making Wwmown Bakersfield Project Bakersfield City Council
F,
p C.
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
Impact GEO-2. The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, involving strong seismic ground -shaking.
Impact GEO-3. The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Compliance with the
CBC and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan policies would ensure that potential hazards
due to liquefaction and soil stability.
Impact GEO-4. The project is not located in an area that would expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
landslides.
Impact GEO-5. The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Impact GEO-6. The project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in table 18-1-b of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), and would not create a substantial risk to life or property.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact GHG-2. The project is forecast to decrease per capita VMT emissions with
implementation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) mitigation measures discussed in
Section 5.13, Transportation.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
Findings of Fact -Section 15091 12 May 9, 2018
Making rx ntow Bakersfield Project Bakersfield City Coumdl
EXHIBIT A
Significant Effect
Impact GHG-1. The project would implement transportation infrastructure improvements that
would enhance and support use of public transit and active modes of transport, reducing VMT-
related GHG emissions in the project area. In addition, future development projects in the project
area would be subject to SJVAPCD requirements to mitigate project -level GHG emissions and
would be required to comply with regulations that reduce GHG emissions.
Description of Specific Impact:
The Project would implement transportation improvements in the Project area that would enhance
and support use of public transit and active modes of transport. These transportation
improvements, in combination with the new HSR station, are expected to result in higher -density,
transit -oriented development near these transportation resources. While new development would
result in an absolute increase in emissions in the Project area, the planned transit -oriented, higher -
density, mixed-use development would reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled per person.
VMT-related emissions typically comprise the majority of operational emissions associated with
non -industrial uses; therefore, the Project's planned transportation improvements would reduce
per capita emissions in the Project area.
Finding s:
Consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, projects would either need to demonstrate compliance with
an approved GHG emissions reduction plan or GHG mitigation program (not currently available
in Bakersfield), implement BPS, or quantify GHG emissions and demonstrate a 29 percent
reduction in emissions relative to un -mitigated emissions. Future assessment of individual
projects' GHG emissions would quantitatively analyze projects' consistency with statewide GHG
emission reduction targets. Future development in the Project area would also be subject to
SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including Rule 9410, which requires employers to develop and
implement an eTRIP to reduce employee vehicle trips, and Rule 9510 (ISR), which requires
projects meeting applicability criteria to reduce NO, operational emissions by 33.3 percent over a
period of ten years; NO, contributes to the formation of 03, which is a GHG. In addition,
Mitigation Measure GHG-I would ensure that all future development projects in the Project area
quantify and mitigate GHG emissions.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact GHG-1. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM GHG-1 Project Specific Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report. Prior to recordation of each
residential subdivision or prior to approval of each Site Plan Review for commercial/industrial
uses within the project site, the project proponent shall submit to the Planning Director a focused
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Report, prepared by a qualified consultant. The report shall
include the following and any additional information required by the Planning Director:
a. An explanation that the project complies with all current state and local applicable GHG
emission control and reduction regulations, as they are adopted or amended over time.
Findings of Fact - Smnoo 15091 13 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Pmjeo Bakersfield City Council
; 7PIG NAL
EXHIBIT A
b. An inventory of the project's GHG emissions, based on SJVAPCD guidance and
approved methodologies.
c. Identification of measures that the project shall implement to reduce operational GHG
emissions by 29 percent over the un -mitigated scenario based on SJVAPCD guidance and
approved methodologies. Consistent with current SJVAPCD guidance, GHG emissions
reduction measures may include, but are not limited to: acquisition of offset credits,
inclusion in an Emission Reduction Agreement approved by SJVAPCD, or other
SJVAPCD-approved GHG reduction strategies.
d. A signed statement by the project applicant that the project shall construct and operate the
project in accordance with factors/mitigation measures utilized in the inventory of project
GHG emissions and reductions identified in the GHG Emissions Report.
e. A copy of the ISR application submitted to the SJVAPCD listing the mitigation measures
utilized to reduce the GHG emissions for the project.
Consistency with a mitigation program adopted by the SJVAPCD or the City of Bakersfield that
can be implemented for the specific development project may be utilized as a replacement for the
requirements of this mitigation measure, if it provides equal or more effective mitigation than this
mitigation measure.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact HAZ-1. The Project will not lead to a significant hazard to the public or to the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-2. The Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Findings of Fact -Section 15091 14 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project Bakersfield Civ Council
ORIGINAL
1W.4
Impact HAZ-3. The Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing school or proposed
school.
Impact HAZ-4. The Project will not result in an increased risk to public health as a result of
being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Impact HAZ-5. The Project area is not located within an airport land use plan, but is within two
miles of a public airport. However the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project area.
Impact HAZ-6. The Project area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.
Impact HAZ-7. The Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact HAZ-8. The Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact HYD -1. The Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Findings of Fact - Soc ion 15091 15 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Protect Bakersfield City Council
6An�
ci 9s
5
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact LU -1. The Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
Impact LU -2. The Project will not allow new development that will be incompatible with
surrounding residential land uses and the existing pattern of development in the Project footprint.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will contribute to cumulative land use impacts. Potential impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Findings of Fact Section 15091 16 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project Bakersfield City Cowcil
of e�ne9s
� o
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
12. NOISE
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact N-1. The Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of temporary
noise levels or ground -borne vibration in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Impact N-3. The Project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant
Sienificant Effect:
Impact N-2. The Project would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Traffic generated by the project
would increase roadway noise levels for existing noise -sensitive receptors in the project area
Noise levels would be in excess of applicable local standards established in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan for existing buildings.
Description of Specific Impact
Buildout under the Project would have significant noise impacts if it would expose people to or
generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the Bakersfield General Plan Noise
Element. All new growth contemplated under the Project would comply with General Standards.
The noise environments in these areas are dominated by traffic on the local streets and traffic on
freeways, such as SR 204. As described in Existing Noise Levels under Section 5.10.1, Setting,
because automobile traffic is the most significant source of noise in Bakersfield, the locations that
would be exposed to the greatest noise increases would be areas in proximity to high-volume
roadways. The analysis contained within this section, therefore, relies primarily upon analysis of
the location of current and potential future noise -sensitive receptors in relation to existing and
projected future roadway noise contours.
Project -generated traffic would increase traffic noise above mobile noise thresholds on various
roadways. In addition, noise -sensitive land uses in close proximity to these roads, including
residences, are expected to be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City's 60 dBA CNEL and 65
Findings of Fad - SWion 15091 17 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bak« field Project Bakersfield City Cowed
FOA�Fy
m
v c;
ORIGINAL,
EXHIBIT A
dBA CNEL compatibility standards for single- and multi -family residences, respectively. Given
these projected future noise levels, implementation of the proposed Vison Plan would expose
existing noise -sensitive receptors in the Project area to noise levels above the City's noise
standards for mobile sources as well as the noise compatibility land use standard for residential
uses.
Findine:
Transportation sources are the largest contributor to noise in the City. However, a local
government has little direct control of transportation noise at the source. The most effective
methods local governments have to mitigate transportation noise is through land use planning that
reduces vehicle trips and incorporation of noise -attenuating features into the architectural design
of projects. However, existing uses cannot be easily redesigned or retrofitted to provide greater
noise attenuation, and it is not always feasible to construct barriers between the existing noise -
sensitive receptor and the new noise source. Therefore, implementation of the Project would
potentially expose existing noise -sensitive receptors to significant and unavoidable noise levels
caused by project -generated traffic.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact N-2. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to the extent feasible but Noise generated by
buildout of the proposed Vision Plan cannot be fully mitigated and therefore would remain
significant and unavoidable.
MM N-2 Transportation and Non -Transportation Noise Control. Project proponents shall
continuously comply with the following noise reduction measures during construction and
operational activities within the project area:
a. All activities shall comply with the policies of the Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element
and enforcement of the City's Noise Ordinance.
b. No construction activity (including the transportation or delivery of any materials, tools,
equipment, or personnel to or from the project site, or the loading or unloading of such
materials, tools, equipment, or personnel) within 500 feet of a residence shall take place
outside of the City's permitted hours of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on
weekends.
c. All construction equipment shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and be properly
maintained. Install temporary noise barriers during construction to reduce noise impacts to
identified sensitive receptors.
d. Project design shall incorporate permanent noise barriers and sound -attenuating features to
reduce noise impacts to identified sensitive receptors.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Eess
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Sienificant Effect:
The project will contribute to cumulative noise impacts
Findings of Fut- Seaton 15091 18 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Prow Bakersfield City C. neil 0� 0 Mt4,
ti m
O O
PAJOINAL
EXHIBIT A
Descrintion of Snecific Impact
The Project considers existing and potential development over an approximately 30 -year
buildout; therefore, the analysis of noise -related impacts within this section of the FIR is already
cumulative in nature. Cumulative development in the Project area would add population,
business, and traffic to the community. This cumulative development would also increase noise
levels in the Project area, especially in the vicinity of its busiest roadways.
Findine:
This impact has been analyzed and determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact on
existing noise -sensitive receptors. However, with implementation of the policies of the
Bakersfield General Plan Noise Element and enforcement of the City's Noise Ordinance,
cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant on new noise -sensitive receptors
developed in future years.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact N-2. Mitigation Measure N-2 will be incorporated
into the project to reduce this impact to the extent feasible, however cumulative noise impacts
would be less than significant on new noise -sensitive receptors developed in future years.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact PH -1. The Project would induce population growth in the immediate area. The increases
are within the Kern COG Regional Population projections.
Impact PH -2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project would increase the
housing stock in the Project area.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None
FindingsdFact Section 15091 19 May 9,2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield ProieG Bakersfidd City Conned
oFO�"F9
r
' n
d �•
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative population and housing impacts.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact PS -1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for additional fire or police services.
Impact PS -2. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for additional schools.
Impact PS -3. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of or need for additional library facilities.
Impact PS -4. The Project would increase use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur
or be accelerated. However, developers would be required to pay park impact fees and any
construction or expansion of recreational facilities to serve the Project area population would
occur in an urban setting, resulting in minimal environmental impacts.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 20 May 4 2018
Making Downtown m1tersfield Project Bakersfield City Coancd O0A�F9�
a T
ti rt
U
ORIr,INAL
EXHIBIT A
None
1F�I *,"W 01 11 y(h
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact T-2. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, There are
no airports in the immediate vicinity of the Project area.
Impact T-3. The Project is programmatic and would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses.
Impact T-4. The Project is programmatic and would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact T-5. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities. Increased infrastructure for transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle would result from the Project improving circulation in the Project area, creating a benefit
for commuters, bicyclists and pedestrians.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
None.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
Sienificant Effect:
Impact T-1. The Project would conflict with the performance criteria of the City of Bakersfield
and Caltrans at several intersections. The Project would increase traffic levels from existing
conditions (2015) through 2025, 2035, 2045 and various CMP facilities would operate at
unacceptable levels of service.
Description of Specific Impact:
According to the traffic analysis conducted, in the buildout year (2045) with Project scenario,
there would be significant traffic impacts at all twelve intersection locations studied under one or
more of the jurisdictional significance criteria used in this study. The final 2045 analysis year
comparing the "with Project" with the "No Project" scenarios, organized by each jurisdiction or
agency's significance criteria. Some intersection locations with LOS F as a result of the Project
were found to be F in the "No Project" scenario, and in some cases, the new roadway
configurations associated with the Project buildout decreased overall intersection delay; therefore,
a significant impact does not exist under all of the agency guidelines except for CMP
intersections.
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 21 Mny 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project Bokersrl ld 0Council
EXHIBIT A
Findine
Mitigation would be required to address impacts at the identified intersections. As discussed in
the Traffic Impact Analysis (Nelson\Nygaard, Revised 3/2018), significant impacts at these or
other intersections found that future Project -level traffic impacts could be reduced in a number of
ways. Historically, mitigation measures to reduce significant traffic impacts to a less than
significant level under CEQA have typically consisted of physical changes to roadways to
increase vehicular throughput and reduce delay. Typical examples include adjustments to signal
timings to increase throughput, payment of citywide traffic impact fees, or implementation of
transportation demand management (TDM) measures. Alternatively, capacity may be expanded
by the construction of roundabouts, which are designed to maintain throughput while improving
safety and reducing impacts on pedestrians and other users. As part of this analysis, the expansion
of intersection and/or roadway segment capacity was considered but was considered infeasible,
due to the right-of-way constraints Downtown that could preclude any additional roadway
widening due to existing structures within the needed right-of-way.
As an alternative to the more conventional approach of intersection capacity expansion as
mitigation, the Project recommends various improvements to transit, bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure within the Project area; these improvements would provide Project area residents,
employees and visitors more transportation options to access the area and would therefore
encourage more people to take transit, bike or walk (See MM T -I.1). These Travel Demand
Management (TDM) mitigation measures, if implemented, could reduce traffic congestion and
parking demand in and around the Project area. However, their effectiveness cannot be
guaranteed and therefore it cannot be guaranteed that TDM programs would reduce impacts to a
level below significance.
Two additional issues related to traffic analysis, impacts and mitigation should also be noted
given the transit -oriented nature of the Project:
1. Under current CEQA guidelines, some future in -fill projects within the Project area
may be exempt from CEQA.
2. CEQA guidelines for traffic impact analysis are currently being revised.
California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375, Steinberg, 2008), in regions with an adopted Sustainable
Communities Strategy or SCS there is an exemption from CEQA traffic analysis for "Transit
Priority Projects," or TPP's. These are defined as projects with at least a 50 percent residential
component (25 percent if FAR is greater than 0.75) and at least 20 net dwelling units per acre
located within one-half mile of a "high quality transit corridor," defined as "a corridor with fixed
route bus service with intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours." Golden
Empire Transit (GET) service in the Chester, California, and 23/24th Street corridors meets this
standard.
Furthermore, as result of passage of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743, Steinberg, 2013) the City would
soon be required to update its significance criteria for traffic impacts, in order to remain
consistent with state law. SB 743 created a process to change the way that transportation impacts
are analyzed under CEQA: specifically, it required the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating
transportation impacts. Per SB 743, auto delay can no longer be considered a significant impact
under CEQA.
Findings of Fad- Section 15091 22 May 9, 2018
Making lxv tow Bakersfield Proicd Bakersfield City Cauncil
gANF9
o T
O o
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
OPR provides technical guidance on the implementation of vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, as
the metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA, including alternative analytical
tools and methods and revised significance criteria. Under its section on "Screening Thresholds",
it recommends a "presumption of less than significant impact new transit stations' that would
exempt from CEQA review all development (and not just primarily residential projects) within
one-half mile of a stop on a "high quality transit corridor," again defined as "a corridor with fixed
route bus service with intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours ." It also
recommends presumption of less than significant impact for smaller projects generating fewer
than 100 trips per day.
Finally, in its "Mitigation and Alternatives" section, the OPR proposal recommends mitigation
strategies designed to reduce VMT rather than auto delay. These include a range of transportation
demand management (TDM) measures as well as changes to the location and design of the
Project. Mitigation measures T -IA through T -IF below are consistent with this guidance.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact T-1. The following mitigation measures will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to the extent feasible but traffic generated by
buildout of the proposed Vision Plan cannot be fully mitigated and therefore would remain
significant and unavoidable.
MM T-1.1 Project -Level Analysis and Mitigation. Prior to the approval of Site Plan Review for
projects that would generate more than 50 peak hour trips, the project proponent shall submit a
Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for review and approval by the City of Bakersfield Public Works
Department. The TIS shall be prepared pursuant to the City's requirements and shall identify
project -specific mitigation measures to reduce project -related impacts to a level that is consistent
with City's adopted performance criteria and contained in the City of Bakersfield's General Plan
(or other adopted mechanism).
MM T-1.2 Circulation Changes and Adjustments. All construction activity within the project
area shall continuously comply with the following: Construction activities within the public right-
of-way shall require approval from the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department. Specific
street improvements identified in this Vision Plan shall be subject to individual review and
approval by the City, and shall be required to adhere to the City's adopted performance criteria.
MM T-1.3 Transportation Demand Management Plan. Prior to "Opening Day" of the High
Speed Rail Station Facility, the City of Bakersfield shall develop a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan for the Project Area. The Plan may include a variety of strategies to
ensure development of a cohesive and efficient multi -modal transportation network, both in and
around the Station area. The Plan may include, but is not limited to, strategies to:
a. Incorporate improvements into future Capital Improvement Programs (CIPS), which facilitate
transit -oriented development at and new the High-speed rail station. The improvements will
enhance connectivity of the "first/last mile" access to the station; and may include, but are not
limited to: bus bays, pick-up/drop-off areas, taxi/e-hailing stands, secured bicycle parking,
dedicated parking for carshare/vanpools/electric vehicles new building entrances, EV
charging stations, transit pass sales outlets, interactive travel kiosks, etc.
F1ndl., of F. - Sermon 15091 23 May 9, 2018
Melon, M—w. Bakersfield Project like field City Council
EXHIBIT A
b. Introduce car -share and bike -share programs to the Project Area; including reserved parking
spaces outside of the station for car -share and bike -share vehicles, and subsidized
membership in car -share programs.
c. Work with Public Transportation Operators to develop programs to incentivize reduced
parking and use of carpooling/public transit; such as:
1. Identify necessary improvements to area bus stops (e.g., seating and shelters) and
pedestrian pathways (e.g. new or improved crosswalks).
2. Offer subsidized transit passes for employees in the Project area.
3. Implement an "Employer Pass Program" where operators offer bulk passes to employers at
a discounted rate for employee use.
d. Work with Employers to develop programs to incentivize reduced parking and use of
carpooling/public transit; such as:
1. "Parking cash -out" program for employees to avoid use of on-site parking.
2. "Guaranteed ride home" program in which employees who took transit or other alternative
modes to work are offered a limited number of fully -subsidized rideshare, taxi rides, or
Transportation Network Company (i.e. Cher, or Lyft) home after hours.
3. Telecommuting program.
4. Employer-sponsored vanpool or rideshare-matching program.
5. On-site childcare programs, cafeterias and other measures to reduce driving trips.
6. Shuttle service to the GET Transit Center and future high-speed rail station hub.
MM T-1.4 Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation. Prior to "Opening Day" of the High
Speed Rail Station Facility, the City of Bakersfield shall implement key improvement
recommendations of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan; including but not limited to, project
level pro -rata contributions of funds toward bicycle transportation improvements identified in the
City of Bakersfield Capital Improvement Program.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
Significant Effect
Impact T-1. The Project would conflict with the performance criteria of the City of Bakersfield
and Caltrans at several intersections. The Project would increase traffic levels from existing
conditions (2015) through 2025, 2035, 2045 and various CMP facilities would operate at
unacceptable levels of service.
Description of specific Impact:
According to the traffic analysis conducted, in the buildout year (2045) with Project scenario,
there would be significant traffic impacts at all twelve intersection locations studied under one or
more of the jurisdictional significance criteria used in this study.
Findings of Fad - Section 15091 24 Ma} 9. 201 g
Making Downtown Bakersfield Pr ject Bakersfield City Council
i0v:n:31r:1
Findin
By its nature, the Project considers cumulative development that would occur within the City's
Project area. The traffic modeling used to determine traffic impacts from the Project takes into
account regional traffic growth and future -year traffic, making the analysis cumulative by design.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine:
For subsequent project impacts, adherence to the goals in the City's Circulation Element and
Mitigation Measures T-1.1 through T-1.3 would likely reduce transportation impacts, but impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore these potential impacts we cumulatively
considerable.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
None.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
Sienificant Effect:
Impact TCR -1. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource.
Description of Specific Immar,t:
Effects on tribal cultural resources are only knowable once a specific project has been proposed
because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the
characteristics of the proposed ground disturbing activity.
Findine:
There is always potential to uncover buried archaeological resources during ground disturbing
activities, which could potentially be considered tribal cultural resources. If the resource(s) were
found to be significant, impacts would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact TCR -1. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM TCR -I Native American Consultation. In the event that archaeological resources of
Native American origin we identified during Project construction, the qualified archaeologist
shall consult with the project proponent and the City to begin or continue Native American
Finding of Fac[ - S cion 15091 zj May 9, 2019
Making Downtown Bakersfield Prject Bakersfield 0Council
or`aanF9s
T
U
n RlrlNAl
EXHIBIT A
consultation procedures. If, in consultation with the City, a discovery is determined to be a tribal
cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan should be prepared and
implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American
groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation plan should be developed to address tribal
concerns.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment
None.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
A. Environmental Effects of the Project Found to Have No Impact on the
Environment, or Have a Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
Impact U-3. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs.
B. Environmental Effects of the Project That Are Potentially Significant, but That Can
Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.
Shmificant Effect
Impact U-1. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from
existing entitlements and resources.
Description of Specific Impact:
The project's water demands are based on full buildout of the Project, which are anticipated to be
incremental over a 30 -year period. Therefore, it is assumed that the projected water demand of
3,213 acre feet/yew would be required in 2045 and beyond. With the exception of residential use,
these estimates represent standard water consumption rates absent water conservation techniques.
The UWMP projects that the combined groundwater and purchased supplies are sufficient to
meet future demands under all hydrologic conditions at anticipated buildout under the plan when
including 20 percent residential reduction of use as required by the Water Conservation Act of
2009. However, water quality and climate change are concerns that must be closely monitored
and addressed.
Findings of Fest - Section 15091 26 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Pmject Bakersfield City Council
o``bA�F9N
n.
i c
OR131NAL
EXHIBIT A
Finding:
Compliance with the above-described water conservation strategies and the water supply
reliability policies would help to ensure sufficient supplies are maintained to accommodate future
growth. The approval of new development within the Project area would continue to be
conditional upon the availability of sufficient water for the Project (Cal Water would need to
confine that sufficient water is available for a proposed project prior to approving the project). By
withholding project approval based on water supply availability, implementation of the Project
would avoid overextending water supplies available to the area.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Finding:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact U-1. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM U-1 Water Efficiency. All future projects within the Project area shall comply with current
Building Code requirements related to water efficiency requirements. Projects shall follow an
"Efficiency First" approach to water conservation as outlined by the U.S. Green Building Council
to first apply reductions in potable water use both indoors and outdoors, then applying alternative
water uses and other forms of reclaimed water use as made available by Cal Water.
Sienificant Effect:
Impact U-2. The Project would generate a new source of wastewater that would flow through the
existing City of Bakersfield sewer system and Treatment Plant No. 2. Local conveyance
infrastructure would be upgraded in accordance with the City of Bakersfield Sewer System
Maintenance plan, and would not need to be upgraded as a result of buildout under the Project.
However, existing wastewater treatment facilities must be expanded to accommodate the
projected growth. The City of Bakersfield, as the wastewater treatment provider, would confirm
that the wastewater treatment system has adequate capacity to serve the Project's demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments.
Description of Specific Impact:
Full buildout of development under the Project is expected to generate approximately 2.78 mgd
of wastewater (3,110 AFY), which would account for approximately 25 percent of Treatment
Plant No. 2's remaining treatment capacity of 11.3 mgd. While adequate capacity exists at the
City's treatment plants to serve the existing population, the existing wastewater treatment
facilities must be expanded to accommodate the overall projected growth in Bakersfield. Full
buildout of the Project would increase wastewater conveyance demand on the existing system by
approximately 2.78 mgd.
Finding
While adequate capacity exists at the City's wastewater treatment plants to serve the existing
population, the existing wastewater treatment facilities must be expanded to accommodate the
overall projected growth in Bakersfield. Continuous implementation of the City of Bakersfield's
Sewer System Management Plan to maintain and rehabilitate sewer pipelines would ensure
Findings of Fad - Section 15091 27 May 9, 2018
Making [downtown Bakersfield Project Bakersfield City Council
o R,NKe
T
O O
(,)RIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
sufficient wastewater conveyance capacity for future Project development. Additionally, the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan includes policies to ensure that an adequate wastewater
collection and treatment system is available to service current demand and future developments.
Brief Explanation of the Rationale for the Findine:
CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the project's
impacts on the environment caused by Impact U-2. The following mitigation measure will be
incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to less than significant:
MM U-2 Wastewater Conveyance Capacity Verification. Prior to commencement of
construction activities, project proponents shall obtain approval for sewer connection from the
City of Bakersfield; and shall continuously adhere to City municipal code requirements related to
sanitary sewer system and wastewater treatment.
C. Environmental Effects of the Project That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level Less
Than Significant.
None.
D. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a Less
Than Significant Impact on the Environment.
The project will not contribute to cumulative impacts on water, wastewater, or solid waste.
E. Cumulative Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project That Will Have a
Significant Impact on the Environment.
IU- if;
SECTION III. FINDINGS REGARDING CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAKE
CERTAIN ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INFEASIBLE
The following findings and brief explanation of the rationale for the findings regarding project
alternatives identified in the EIR are set forth to comply with the requirements of Section
15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The consideration of alternatives is an integral component of the CEQA process. The selection
and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives provides the public and decision -makers with
information on ways to avoid or lessen environmental impacts created by a proposed project.
When selecting alternatives for evaluation, CEQA requires alternatives that meet most of the
basic objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening the project's significant
effects.
Three alternatives to the project were defined and analyzed
Ff.n.eof PaN saetlnn Isosl 28 ,9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project e�:a�aala City
OFean F9s,,.
m
v
PRIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Description
This alternative assumes that the HSR system is not built and that the Project area would retain its
existing land use designations according to the existing City of Bakersfield General Plan. The
existing growth assumptions for the Project area would continue to apply. This alternative
assumes that buildout in the Project area would occur as forecast in the Making Downtown
Bakersfield Economic Development Analysis (HR&A 2016), which would be focused within the
City's downtown core along with transit and transportation improvements consistent with the
existing 2020 General Plan. This alternative assumes that no HSR infrastructure improvements
would occur.
Impact Analysis
The No Project alternative would involve no changes to the existing regulatory controls and land
use policies for the Project area. The circulation and infrastructure improvements and
commercial/residential development envisioned in the Project area would not occur. As such, this
alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable project related impacts to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation impacts. However, some impacts in these
issues areas would continue to occur in the Project area as a result of buildout envisioned in the
2020 General Plan.
Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives
Although overall impacts would be lower than those of the Project, the beneficial effects
associated with the Project (pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, and transit improvements) would
not occur. In addition, the proposed Vision is consistent with City and Kern County regional
goals to facilitate infill development along major transit corridors and to locate housing nearjobs
and commercial uses in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated air pollution
and GHG emissions. The Project is designed to encourage a mix of housing and jobs new major
transit corridors in infill locations.
The No Project Alternative would not fulfill the Project Objectives, especially as existing
development conditions do not provide a high level of connectivity between the HSR Station and
activity and cultural centers, do not support the creation of an efficient, reliable, and effective
multi -modal transportation system, and would not allow for enhanced livability new transit and a
more unique sense of place within Downtown Bakersfield.
Alternative 2: Low Intensity/Density Design
Description
This alternative would reduce overall commercial square footage/residential units based upon
future general plan buildout estimates plus development associated with the Bakersfield HSR
project and would focus future buildout primarily around the Bakersfield HSR station, the
Chester Avenue corridor and the City's downtown core.
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 29 May 9, 2018
Making nownmvm Bakersfield Project Bakersfield City Council
10:4:111.1101
2. Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 2 is projected to have between 42 to 73 percent of the growth of the Project in years
0-10, 54 to 70 percent of the growth in years 10 to 20, and 56 to 69 percent at buildout (30 years).
Overall future development would therefore be less than the Project, but would likely still require
similar construction of infrastructure and new construction would likely include similar building
forms similar to those envisioned in the Project in an attempt to meet the Project objectives.
Similar strategies for the construction of walkable, sustainable, mixed-use environments and
development in keeping with the scale of surrounding development would also be implemented in
keeping with the Project's urban design guidelines. Multi -family residential structures may have
smaller massing or less density than the Project, but would still be built to the same design
standards of the Project along with a wide range of commercial, civic, residential, and
recreational development opportunities. This reduction in size would reduce new sources of light
and glare when compared to the Project.
Overall, aesthetics impacts would be similar to the Project impacts to the visual character would
likely be reduced as a result of the reduction in size and massing of buildings. As with the Project,
aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.
b. Air Quality
While the Project would expand opportunities for new growth new the Bakersfield HSR station
through re -use and infill development, Alternative 2 would limit the ability to combine higher
density housing with development. As a result, the overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) expected to occur from development patterns proposed in the Project is less under this
alternative. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the development of more compact, mixed-
use urban forms that are conducive to biking and walking, combined with improvements in the
active transportation network and increases in accessibility to sustainable modes of transport,
would result in a regional reduction in VMT of approximately 20.4 million miles by 2035. While
some reduction in VMT could occur under Alternative 2 as a result of the development of fewer
residential units compared to the Project, given the planned regional increase in the amount of
sustainable transportation available to Bakersfield residents and the increase in public acceptance
of active fortes of transportation as feasible forms of travel, this reduction would likely not be of
the same magnitude as those facilitated by the Project, which could facilitate more compact
development and provide more opportunities for future residents and employees to utilize
alternatives forms of transportation within the Project area
Overall, air quality impacts would likely be lower under this alternative due to fewer residential
units, and less office and retail space. However, as with the Project, air quality impacts would be
significant and unavoidable. This alternative would require compliance with all of the same air
quality mitigation measures required for the Project
c. Biological Resources
The Project study area includes suitable habitat to support the western pond turtle, burrowing owl,
Swainson's hawk, and San Joaquin kit fox — even though it is low quality habitat. Although there
may be more potential to avoid impacts to these listed species with less development occurring
under this alternative, vacant lands may be the most attractive for initial development due to
Findings of Fact - Section 15091 30 May 9, 2018
Ma ,, Downtown Bakersfield Project Bakersfield City Council
Fe�*�ey
o T
c,
GRIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
reduced cost for development compared to demolition and/or reconstruction, where suitable
habitat is most likely to occur. Development would occur within the same areas, so impacts to the
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) would be similar.
Overall, biological impacts would be the same as identified in the Project. Biological impacts
would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation as identified for the Project
for the aforementioned species and less than significant in regards to the HCP.
d. Cultural Resources
Several known significant historical resources are located within the Project area. For properties
with an identified or potentially eligible resource, changes to building exteriors or demolition of
buildings could result in impacts to historic resources. Alternative 2 covers the same area so
would have the same potential impact as the Project, but increased opportunities for avoidance
could occur as a result of the reduced intensity under Alternative 2.
Overall, cultural and paleontological resource impacts would be the same or potentially slightly
less than the Project. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the
mitigation identified for the Project for cultural and paleontological resources.
e. Geology and Soils
The Project area is not located in an area that has been identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone as delineated on the most recent Fault Zone Map (DOC 1985). The Project area is also
not within an area prone to landslides, soil erosion/loss of top soil, or expansive soils. Therefore,
the risk of rupture of the ground surface, seismically induced ground -shaking, liquefaction,
landslides, soil erosion, or construction on expansive soils would be low and the Project would
not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of
an earthquake fault, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion, or construction on
expansive soils. The potential risk under Alternative 2 would be identical as it covers the same
Project area and therefore would have the same risk. As identified under the Project, this impact
would be less than significant.
f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
At full buildout, Alternative 2 would accommodate 3,430 fewer residential units, 875,000 less
square feet of office space, 280,151 less square feet of retail space, and 1,000 fewer hotel units.
This would also account for 3,361 fewerjobs. Therefore, GHG emissions per project population
would be less than those of the Project. As with the Project, impacts would be significant. This
alternative would require compliance with all of the same greenhouse gas emissions mitigation
measures required for the Project.
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project would facilitate future development and redevelopment through which hazardous
material could be transported, stored or used, or take place on a known hazardous materials site.
Development could also occur on sites that have been previously contaminated by hazardous
materials or contain hazardous materials such as asbestos potentially released during demolition.
In addition, there is the potential for residential development near commercial uses in the
downtown area, thereby potentially increasing the risk of human exposure to hazardous materials.
Findings of f'w - Swion 15091 31 May 9, 2018
Making Down Bakvetield Pr jut Bakersfield 01, Council
EXHIBIT A
Hazards related to airports would be the same as for the Project as well. The buildout envisioned
with Alternative 2 would generally occur within the same area, and therefore the impacts under
Alternative 2 would be similar to those identified with the Project. These impacts would have no
impact or be less than significant under Alternative 2.
h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Future development under the Project would be subject to multiple permits and approvals
associated with the protection of water quality. These same permits would apply to Alternative 2.
Compliance with these permits and regulations, potential impacts to water quality during
construction and operation of future projects would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would
be less than significant.
I. Land Use and Planning
The Project does not establish new land use and zoning designations, design guidelines, or
development standards. Alternative 2 would not change this, but as with the Project, its
recommended land use, design, and implementation strategies would serve as a guide for
establishing general development patterns and timelines within a specific part of the downtown
area. Alternative 2 would not fully implement the critical elements of the Project (connectivity,
livability, and prosperity) nor fully implement the listed objectives for the Project. Although
Alternative 2 would not fully implement the key elements or objectives compared to the Project,
it would still be considered consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the
2014 RTP/SCS and its impacts would be less than significant.
As with the Project, Alternative 2 would not permit new development that would be incompatible
with surrounding residential land uses or the existing pattern of development within the Project
area. The Project is designed to create a sustainable mix of urban neighborhoods focused on
providing a blend of commercial uses, residential uses, transit -oriented building forms and
lifestyle focused near the proposed HSR station. Alternative 2 would follow the same design land
use and urban design principals, but to a lesser density than that of the Project. Therefore
Alternative 2 would have similar and less than significant impacts on land use.
J. Noise
Alternative 2 would reduce residential development and result in an overall decrease of non-
residential buildout within the Project area. Noise and vibration levels would be similar to the
Project as the same type of construction equipment would be used. The overall duration of noise
and vibration associated with construction would likely be less, as available land for development
would be reduced.
Similar to the Project, this alternative would involve development adjacent to residential
neighborhoods. Existing and future sensitive receptors within the Project area would be exposed
to operational noise from buildout under this alternative, although fewer sensitive receptors
would be introduced to the Project area under this alternative. Similar to the Project, development
under this alternative would be subject to the Bakersfield General Plan's goals, policies, and Land
Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Similar to the Project, impacts would be less than
significant.
Findings of Face - SW un 15091 32 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Prc,w Bakersfield Cir, Council
T
} n
v c
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
This altemative would still contribute additional vehicle trips on roadways that generate noise
levels of approximately 75 dBA. Although this alternative's contribution to operational noise
levels would be reduced when compared to the Project, traffic related noise impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would require compliance with all of the
same noise mitigation measures required for the Project.
k. Population and Housing
Full buildout of the Project would involve the development of up to 8,570 residential units, 2,413
hotel units, 905,988 square feet of retail space, and 2,005,000 square feet of office space.
Alternative 2 would develop 60 percent less residential units, 42 to 56 percent less office space,
69 to 73 percent less retail, and 52 to 59 percent less hotel units depending on the phase of
development (10, 20, and 30 years). The reduction in new residential units would result in a
similar decrease in population growth within the Project area as shown below with a 40 percent
reduction in population growth compared to the Project which would result in a population
growth of 29,860 compared to 17,990.
Table 1Proiect Area Emolovee Growth Proiections for Alternative 2
New Residential Units 660 2,000 2,480 5,140
Average household sial 3.29 3.43 3.58 n/a
New Project area Population
Growth 2,171 6,860 8,878 17,909
Source: (DOF 2017b)
The Project would not induce substantial population growth indirectly or directly, and impacts
were determined to be less than significant. Alternative 2, with 40 percent less population growth,
would also have a less than significant impact on population.
The Project may involve demolition and replacement of existing buildings to accommodate
higher density residences. This would be similar for Alternative 2, although likely at a reduced
scale due to the reduced development. Nevertheless, Alternative 2 would construct more housing
than it would remove, and therefore impacts related to the displacement of housing and
population would be less than significant.
I. Public Services and Recreation
Implementation of the Project would increase the City's population, resulting in greater demands
on City police, fire protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities and services. Impacts to
these services under the Project were determined to be less than significant. Alternative 2
impacts, with its reduction in population and growth compared to the Project, would also result in
a less than significant impact.
Finding of Pad - Section 15091
Making Downtown Bakersfield Praied
33
May 9, 2018
Bakersfield City Council
o``gA�'F9
s,
� m
v c
C,,IGINAL
EXHIBIT A
M. Transportation
Alternative 2 would generate less peak hour and daily trips compared to the Project. The Project
would generate additional AM and PM peak hour trips and would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts at all 14 study intersections. Although a specific intersection evaluation was
not conducted for this alternative, it can be reasonably assumed that this alternative would have
reduced traffic impacts at study area intersections compared to the Project. However, due to the
existing poor level of service at the study intersections, impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative would improve bicycle, pedestrian, and public
transit facilities, however to a lesser extent that the Project. Implementation of Travel Demand
Management (TDM) strategies (mitigation measures T -IA through T -IE) recommended as part
of the Project can reduce traffic congestion and parking demand in and around the Project area.
Although implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures often reduce traffic and
circulation impacts, quantification of the impact reduction is typically addressed at the project
level, when more project details are available for analysis. Given that site specific project -level
details are not available at this time and the effectiveness of the transportation demand
management mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed by the City of Bakersfield, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
n. Tribal Cultural Resources
Effects on tribal cultural resources are only knowable once a specific project has been proposed
because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the
characteristics of the proposed ground -disturbing activity. There is always potential to uncover
buried archaeological resources during ground disturbing activities, which could potentially be
considered tribal cultural resources. If the resource(s) were found to be significant, impacts would
be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Alternative 2 would have similar
impacts regarding tribal cultural resources since the impact the same Project area, and therefore
potentially significant unless mitigation TCR -1 is implemented as with the Project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems
There would be an increased demand on water, wastewater, and utility services under the Project.
Water demand associated with full buildout of development included under the Project is
anticipated to be approximately 2.87 million gallons per day (3,213 acre feet/year) at full
buildout. Alternative 2 would have reduced water usage based on a reduced population and
development compared to the Project. These reductions would be similar for wastewater and
other services. The impacts from Alternative 2 would still need to implement mitigation measures
U-1 Water Efficiency, and U-2 Wastewater Conveyance Capacity Verification to ensure impacts
are less than significant.
Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives
The primary environmental benefits when compared to the Project would be a reduced impacts on
aesthetics/visual character, less traffic, reduced land use and planning impacts by reducing
development intensity adjacent to the western boundary of the Project area, and reduced impacts
on public services and utilities and service systems. This alternative, at buildout, would have 40
Findings of Fact -Section 15091 34 May 9, 2018
Making Downww Bakersfield Ptyect Bakersfield Ciry Cowell
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
percent less residential, 44 percent less office, 31 percent less retail, and 41 percent less hotel
rooms compared to the Project at full buildout (2045).
Alternative 3: Medium Intensity/Density Design
1. Description
This alternative would reduce overall commercial square footage/residential units but less than
the Low Intensity/Density Alternative. The development intensity/density for this alternative was
calculated by averaging the forecasted buildout proposed as part of the Project and Alternative 2.
This alternative would focus future development primarily around the Bakersfield HSR Station,
the Chester Avenue Corridor, Truxtun Avenue east of Chester Avenue, and the HSR corridor east
of Garces Circle. This alternative would also keep the City's building height cap to limit the
height of any future high rise development.
2. Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 3 is projected to have between 13 to 29 percent less growth compared to the Project in
years 0-10, 15 to 23 percent less growth in years 10 to20, and 12 to 15 percent of growth at
buildout (30 years). The development would therefore have less intensity compared to the
Project, but would still have much of the infrastructure, reuse, and new construction similar to the
Project in attempting to meet the Project objectives. Impacts from Alternative 3 would be greater
compared to Alternative 2, but less compared to the Project. Similar strategies for the
construction of walkable, sustainable, mixed-use environments and development in keeping with
the scale of surrounding development would occur along with following the Project's urban
design guidelines. Multi -family residential structures may have smaller massing due to the height
limitations and less density than the Project, but would still be built to the same design standards
of the Project to develop a wide range of commercial, civic, residential, and recreational
development opportunities. This reduction in size would reduce new sources of light and glare.
Overall, aesthetics impacts would be similar to the Project impacts but to a lesser level due to a
reduction in building height and likely massing of buildings. Similar to the Project, aesthetic
impacts would be less than significant.
b. Air Quality
While the Project would expand opportunities for new growth near Bakersfield HSR station
through re -use and infill, Alternative 3 would reduce the ability to combine higher density
housing with development due to the lower building height and amount of developments allowed
to occur within the Project area. As a result, the overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
expected to occur from development patterns proposed in the Project is less under this alternative
but more than Alternative 2. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, the development of more
compact, mixed-use urban forms that are conducive to biking and walking, combined with
improvements in the active transportation network and increases in accessibility to sustainable
modes of transport, would result in a regional reduction in VMT of approximately 20.4 million
miles by 2035. While some reduction in VMT would occur under Alternative 3, development of
fewer residential units compared to the Project would have a lesser reduction in VMT compared
to the Project. Alternative 3 would not maximize the benefit of increased sustainable
Findings of Pact - section 15091 35 May 9, 2018
Making Doxntaw Bakersfield Pmw Bakersfield City Council
..: rrAI
transportation available to Bakersfield and especially within the Project area. The Project would
facilitate more compact development and access to transit, but Alternative 3 would still facilitate
use of transit to a greater level computed to Alternative 2.
Overall, air quality construction impacts would likely be lower under this alternative due to fewer
residential units, and less office and retail space, but would have less capacity for decreasing
VMT in Bakersfield. As with the Project, air quality impacts would be significant This
alternative would require compliance with all of the same air quality mitigation measures
required for the Project.
c. Biological Resources
As with Alternative 2, Alternative 3 has the same project area as the Project. This project study
area includes suitable habitat to support the western pond turtle, burrowing owl, Swainson's
hawk, and San Joaquin kit fox — even though it is low quality habitat Although there may be
more potential to avoid impacts to these listed species with less development occurring under this
alternative, the reduced building height of Alternative 3 could result in more vacant lands being
sited for initial development to build the allowed number of units. Vacant lands are where
suitable habitat is most likely to occur for the listed species. Development would occur within the
same Project area, so impacts to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
would be similar.
Overall, biological impacts would be the same as identified in the Project and Alternative 2.
Biological impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation as
identified for the Project for the aforementioned species and less than significant in regards to the
HCP.
d. Cultural Resources
Because Alternative 3 covers the same area, it would have the same potential impact as the
Project. However, impacts would be slightly greater than Alternative 2. The same assumptions
would apply for potential ground disturbance leading to discovery of archaeological or
paleontological deposits. Several known significant historical resources are located within the
Project area. For properties with an identified or potentially eligible resource, changes to building
exteriors or demolition of buildings could result in impacts to historic resources. This impact
would be similar to the Project and slightly greater than Alternative 2.
Overall, cultural and paleontological resource impacts would be the same to slightly less as
identified in the Project. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the
mitigation identified for the Project for cultural and paleontological resources.
e. Geology and Soils
The Project area is not located in an area that has been identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone as delineated on the most recent Fault Zone Map (DOC 1985). The Project area is also
not within an area prone to landslides, soil erosion/loss of top soil, or expansive soils. Therefore,
the risk of rupture of the ground surface, seismically induced ground -shaking, liquefaction,
landslides, soil erosion, or construction on expansive soils would be low and the Project would
not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of
an earthquake fault, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion, or construction on
Findings of Fact - Scction 15091 36 May 9, 2018
Making Downtown BakersOdd Po,W Bakersfield City Council
� m
v
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
expansive soils. The potential risk under Alternative 3, as with Alternative 2, would be identical
as it covers the same Project area and therefore would have the same risk. As identified under the
Project, this impact would be less than significant.
f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would accommodate 1,715 fewer residential units, 437,500 less square feet of office
space, 140,075 less square feet of retail space, and 500 fewer hotel units. This would also account
for 2,097 fewer jobs. Therefore, GHG emissions per the project population would be less than
those of the Project. As with the Project and Alternative 2, impacts would be significant. This
alternative would require compliance with all of the same greenhouse gas emissions mitigation
measures required for the Project.
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to that identified by the Project, and therefore
Alternative 2 since they all occur within the same Project area. The Project would facilitate future
development and redevelopment through which hazardous material could be transported, stored
or used, or take place on a known hazardous materials site. Development could also occur on sites
that have been previously contaminated by hazardous materials or contain hazardous materials
such as asbestos potentially released during demolition. In addition, there is the potential for
residential development new commercial uses in the downtown area, thereby potentially
increasing the risk of human exposure to hazardous materials. Hazards related to airports would
be the same as the Project and Alternative 2.
It. Hydrology and Water Quality
Future development under the Project would be subject to multiple permits and approvals
associated with the protection of water quality. These same permits would apply to Alternative 3
and Alternative 2. Compliance with these permits and regulations, potential impacts to water
quality during construction and operation of future projects would be minimized or avoided, and
impacts would be less than significant.
1. Land Use and Planning
The Project does not establish new land use and zoning designations, design guidelines, or
development standards. Alternative 3 would not change this, but as with the Project, its
recommended land use, design, and implementation strategies would serve as a guide for
establishing general development patterns and timelines within a specific part of the downtown
area. Alternative 3 would not fully implement the critical elements of the Project (connectivity,
livability, and prosperity), nor fully implement the listed goals for the Project, but would to a
greater extent than Alternative 2. Although Alternative 3 would not fully implement the vision or
goals compared to the Project, it would still be considered consistent with the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan and the 2014 RTP/SCS and its impacts would he less than significant
As with the Project, Alternative 3 would not permit new development that would be incompatible
with surrounding residential land uses or the existing pattern of development within the Project
area. The Project is designed to create a sustainable mix of urban neighborhoods focused on
providing a blend of commercial uses, residential uses, transit -oriented building forms and
lifestyle focused near the proposed HSR station. Alternative 3 would follow the same design, but
Finding of Fara - Stvtco 15091
Making Downtown Bakersfield Pr ecl
37
May 9, 2018
Bakersfield City Council OF O�Rt•9
H
U
()f?ICuiNAL
EXHIBIT A
to a lesser density than that of the Project and would maintain the City's existing building height
cap. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar and less than significant impacts on land use.
j. Noise
Alternative 3 would reduce residential development and result in an overall decrease of non-
residential buildout within the Project area, but to a lesser extent than Alternative 2. Noise and
vibration levels would be similar to the Project as the same type of construction equipment would
be used. The overall duration of noise and vibration associated with construction would likely be
less, as available land for development would be reduced when compared to the Project.
Similar to the Project, this alternative would involve development adjacent to residential
neighborhoods. Existing and future sensitive receptors within the Project area would be exposed
to operational noise from buildout under this alternative, although fewer sensitive receptors
would be introduced to the Project area under this alternative. Similar to the Project, development
under this alternative would be subject to the Bakersfield General Plan's goals, policies, and Land
Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Similar to the Project, impacts would be less than
significant.
This alternative would still contribute additional vehicle trips on roadways that generate noise
levels of approximately 75 dBA. Although this alternative's contribution to operational noise
levels would be reduced when compared to the Project and higher than Alternative 2, traffic
related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would require
compliance with all of the same noise mitigation measures required for the Project.
k. Population and Housing
Full buildout of the Project would involve the development of up to 8,570 residential units, 2,413
hotel units, 905,988 square feet of retail space, and 2,005,000 square feet of office space.
Alternative 3 would develop 20 percent less residential units, 22 to 29 percent less office space,
13 to 15 percent less retail, and 21 to 24 percent less hotel units depending on the phase of
development (10, 20, and 30 years). The reduction in new residential units would result in a
similar decrease in population growth within the Project area as shown in Table 2 below with a
20 percent reduction in population growth compared to the Project which would result in a
population growth of 29,860 compared to 23,885.
Table 2Proiect Area Employee Growth Projections for Alternative 3
New Residential Units
880 2,670
3,305
6,855
Average household size'
3.29 3.43
3.58
n/a
New Project area Population
Growth
2,895 9,158
11,832
23,885
Source: (DOF 2017b)
Finding of Fmt -Swim 15091
Making Downtown Bakersfield Project
38
May 9, 2018
Bakersfield City Council
O�e�.FF9�
m
U �
nnl G!NAt,
EXHIBIT A
The Project would not induce substantial population growth indirectly or directly, and impacts
were determined to be less than significant. Alternative 3, with 20 percent less population growth,
would also have a less than significant impact on population.
The Project may involve demolition and replacement of existing buildings to accommodate
higher density residences. This would be similar for Alternative 3, although likely at a reduced
scale due to the reduced development. Nevertheless, Alternative 3 would construct more housing
than it would remove, and therefore impacts related to the displacement of housing and
population would be less than significant.
I. Public Services and Recreation
Implementation of the Project would increase the City's population, resulting in greater demands
on City police, fire protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities and services. Impacts to
these services under the Project were determined to be less than significant. The reduction in
population and growth compared to the Project would also result in a less than significant impact,
although the impacts would be greater compared to Alternative 2.
M. Transportation
Alternative 3 would generate less peak hour and daily trips compared to the Project, but more
than Alternative 2. The Project would generate additional AM and PM peak hour trips and would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts at all 14 study intersections. Although a specific
intersection evaluation was not conducted for this alternative, it can be reasonably assumed that
this alternative would have reduced traffic impacts at study area intersections compared to the
Project. However, due to the existing poor level of service at the study intersections (see Error!
Reference source not found.), impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the proposed Project, this alternative would improve bicycle, pedestrian, and public
transit facilities, however to a lesser extent than the Project. Implementation of Travel Demand
Management (TDM) strategies (mitigation measures T -IA through T -I E) recommended as part
of the Project can reduce traffic congestion and parking demand in and around the Project area-
Although
reaAlthough implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures often reduce traffic and
circulation impacts, quantification of the impact reduction is typically addressed at the project
level, when more project details are available for analysis. Given that site specific project -level
details are not available at this time and the effectiveness of the transportation demand
management mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed by the City of Bakersfield, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
n. Tribal and Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 impacts would be similar to the impacts from the Project and Alternative 2 since
they are all within the same Project area. Effects on tribal cultural resources are only knowable
once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the
individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed ground -disturbing
activity. There is always potential to uncover buried archaeological resources during ground
disturbing activities, which could potentially be considered tribal cultural resources. If the
resource(s) were found to be significant, impacts would be potentially significant unless
mitigation is incorporated. Alternative 3 would have similar impacts and therefore potentially
significant unless mitigation TCR -I is implemented as with the Project.
Findingsof Fact SttYbn 15091 39 May 9,2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield Prgect Bakersfield City Council
0 P Fy
OF 'Pr
t -
v c
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT A
o. Utilities and Service Systems
There would be an increased demand on water, wastewater, and utility services under the Project.
Water demand associated with full buildout of development included under the Project is
anticipated to be approximately 2.87 million gallons per day (3,213 acre feet/yew) at full
buildout. Alternative 3 would have reduced water usage based on a reduced population and
development compared to the Project but more than Alternative 2. These reductions would be
similar for wastewater and other services. The impacts from Alternative 3 would still need to
implement mitigation measures U-1 Water Efficiency, and U-2 Wastewater Conveyance Capacity
Verification to ensure impacts are less than significant.
Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives
The primary environmental benefits when compared to the Project would be reduced impacts on
aesthetics/visual character, less traffic, reduced land use and planning impacts by reducing
development intensity adjacent to the western boundary of the Project area, and reduced impacts on
public services and utilities and service systems. This alternative at buildout would have 20 percent
less residential, 22 percent less office, 15 percent less retail, and 21 percent less hotel rooms
compared to the Project at full buildout (2045).
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would reduce all of the Project impacts and would be environmentally
superior to the Project because development anticipated in the Project would exceed development
anticipated under the 2020 General Plan. Although overall impacts would be lower than those of the
Project, the beneficial effects associated with the Project (pedestrian facility, bicycle facility, and
transit improvements) would not occur. The No Project Alternative would not fulfill the Project
Objectives, especially as existing development conditions do not provide a high level of
connectivity between the HSR Station and activity and cultural centers, do not support the creation
of an efficient, reliable, and effective multi -modal transportation system, and would not allow for
enhanced livability near transit and a more unique sense of place within Downtown Bakersfield.
Alternatives 2 and 3 could be considered environmentally superior, as they would reduce impacts
related to air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and traffic due primarily to the reduction in housing
units. However, these alternatives would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts. No
mitigation measures are available to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. These alternatives
would generally meet most of the Project objectives, but to a lesser degree than the Project. Of the
development alternatives being considered, the Low Intensity/Density Design Alternative
(Alternative 2) could be considered environmentally superior, as it would reduce impacts in many
issue areas, due primarily to the reduction in future commercial housing unit construction as well as
less of a strain on both transportation and utilities infrastructure.
Finding[ of Fact - Section 15091 40 May 9, 2018
Making lion oW. Bakwsficld Progect Bakersfield City Council
o4 p'�n F9
T
} m
t-
pgiQINAL
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093
For
HIGH SPEED RAIL STATION AREA VISION PLAN
"MAKING DOWNTOWN BAKERSFIELD"
Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 2016081071)
Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield
Community Development Department
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse impacts in determining whether to approve
the project. The Making Downtown Bakersfield Project will result in environmental effects, which,
although mitigated to the extent feasible by the implementation of mitigation measures required for the
project, will remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and CEQA Findings of Fact. These impacts are summarized below and constitute those impacts for
which this Statement of Overriding Considerations is made.
I. Despite the implementation of all feasible and reasonable mitigation, a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would still
occur and increase roadway noise levels for existing noise -sensitive receptors in the Project area. This
impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Noise levels would be in excess of applicable local
standards established in the Bakersfield General Plan for existing buildings.
2. Despite the implementation of all feasible and reasonable mitigation, the Project would conflict with
the transportation system performance criteria of the City of Bakersfield and Caltrans at several
intersections and are considered significant and unavoidable. The Project would increase traffic levels
from existing conditions (2015) through 2025, 2035, 2045 and various County Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) facilities would operate at unacceptable levels of service. However, no
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts at the affected City and the affected
Caltrans intersections, as the City cannot guarantee the effectiveness of the transportation demand
management measures.
FINDINGS
The Bakersfield City Council finds and determines in approving the Making Downtown Bakersfield
Project that the Final FIR has considered the identified means of lessening or avoiding the Project's
significant effects and that to the extent any significant direct or indirect environmental effects, including
cumulative project impacts, remain unavoidable or not mitigated to below a level of significance after
mitigation, such impacts are at an acceptable level in light of the social, legal, economic, environmental,
technological and other project benefits discussed below, and such benefits override, outweigh, and make
"acceptable" any such remaining environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section
15092(b)).
Statement of Overriding Coosideations- Swtion 15093 1 May 9, 2018 6�o,E
Making Downtown BoamfieldP jeo Bakeafidd City Cowcil 0Q Jr
m
I)PIGINA4
EXHIBIT B
The following benefits and considerations outweigh such significant and unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the
Findings, the Final EIR, and the record of proceedings for the Project. Each of these benefits and
considerations is a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the Project, so that if a court
were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit or consideration will occur and justifies
project approval, this City Council determines that it would stand by its determination that the remaining
benefits) or consideration(s) is or are sufficient to warrant project approval.
FACTS
Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project,
independent of the other benefits, and the City Council determines that the adverse environmental impacts
of the Project are "acceptable" if any one of these benefits will be realized. The Project will provide
benefits to the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1. Increase Population and Economic Density in the Urban Core. The Project will facilitate
significant population growth through the 30 -year study period; including up to 8,570 new residential
units and greater economic density based on major increases in retail and office space.
2. Support Residential and Commercial Activity. The Project will facilitate growth in
retail/commercial activities and increased residential space in Downtown Bakersfield which would
further define Downtown w the economic engine of the region.
3. Develop Underutilized and Vacant Properties. The Project will create a framework for increased
population and economic activity in the urban core and encourage further development of
undemtilized and vacant properties through increased demand for space in the area.
4. Connect Existing Activity and Cultural Centers. The Project seeks to increase the walkability of
Downtown Bakersfield and provide for increased bicycle access. This, coupled with intercity HSR,
would ensure that cultural centers and other areas of activity are increasingly interconnected
throughout the life of the Plan.
5. Create an Efficient, Reliable, and Effective Multi -Modal Transportation System. Downtown
Bakersfield would benefit from an effective multi -modal transportation system through the presence
of the HSR station, the existing road network, and an increase in pedestrian and bicycle options.
6. Enhance Sustainability, Livability and A Unique Sense of Place. The creation of additional
downtown residential units coupled with a more pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly environment would
ensure that Downtown would be a sustainable, livable, and unique community well into the future.
7. Secure Funding for Identified Implementation Actions. The Project will facilitate increased
vibrancy through increased population and economic growth, making Bakersfield an attractive
candidate for local, state, and federal funding for implementation actions associated with the Project.
8. Economic Benefits of the Project. The project will result in direct economic benefits to Bakersfield
because it will facilitate streamlined future growth, rehabilitation and enhanced infrastructure in the
Downtown Bakersfield area. This will result in additional jobs and investment in the Downtown area.
The project is estimated to increase property tax payments and this revenue will be used to provide
essential services to City residents. The project will provide further economic benefit to the City and
its residents by increased spending in the community as a result of construction and development
related to the project. These benefits will enhance economic growth in the Downtown area and
overall community of Bakersfield.
Statement ofO.ding Considerstions—Seaton 15093 2 May9,2018
Making Downtown Bakersfield I'Mect Bakersfield City COMC11 p '1;
m
npIryNAL
T.
tl
ro
a
A
m
s
W
o
W
U
d
C
P.
CU
W
ti
G
o
o
�
a
U
�
?
S
3°
F
z
3e
O
a
6
a
a
�
o
a
m
0
oC
U
T
ro
lA
m
F2
Nv'O.E«F•. m 4 w Ea8 W°
osQ �U Eotp 3_z:. m^v s °VQ `c'o `E
9 U O v1 0.Z S L W W y Q PY t d = d O T ME
L
C C{Cq OCEnm°t3 IL UOQ9
. E >-E
>'5t E°,v
EaS.�jo_pp�cUm«E
Ac
=mc SF
E2.` -;i EQ.o .-ot « vy=o:°`o'Ym
cs°v'n o U r S.`°.s `a m=c�a0.°,Eo ccE c•�'^Eu« t
9'
tESW �°, `"�"' Eo `mE E>oV co
Evr� �voo '�'oEE ,inn
vLE E
VaE C �.o .N9Go� 2PV`_'s E1
F °yv�3p.w E mtQ3m Hca ,Qyu ::c" tO MK9'"
E �,v io¢�vE° a tivzu°3oa `° or`oN v,P m=
m° 2
t"• -.o -c 8
.L°'N h OEO' OylV6wOTCLL]� .w..CO'vi -O OO.
E
F a`coU °u EuEis
OP.I(INAL
�E
o
E
n
�U �
O q Z' Y
O
EL n
6 e
>o
a„
O
oE
UE
iN
°YO
U
uo E v
4:q
`E
.Pm
m a
E o
E 3 N o o
m
E v o E
y
=0n°oa°co�v
y�
�j
ENaa
y�
U
Eyay2EaEm
$o
EA
�1i-Hofs-UU
0
att-AF
ca
aF
m U O
Nv'O.E«F•. m 4 w Ea8 W°
osQ �U Eotp 3_z:. m^v s °VQ `c'o `E
9 U O v1 0.Z S L W W y Q PY t d = d O T ME
L
C C{Cq OCEnm°t3 IL UOQ9
. E >-E
>'5t E°,v
EaS.�jo_pp�cUm«E
Ac
=mc SF
E2.` -;i EQ.o .-ot « vy=o:°`o'Ym
cs°v'n o U r S.`°.s `a m=c�a0.°,Eo ccE c•�'^Eu« t
9'
tESW �°, `"�"' Eo `mE E>oV co
Evr� �voo '�'oEE ,inn
vLE E
VaE C �.o .N9Go� 2PV`_'s E1
F °yv�3p.w E mtQ3m Hca ,Qyu ::c" tO MK9'"
E �,v io¢�vE° a tivzu°3oa `° or`oN v,P m=
m° 2
t"• -.o -c 8
.L°'N h OEO' OylV6wOTCLL]� .w..CO'vi -O OO.
E
F a`coU °u EuEis
OP.I(INAL
71
■
)
)
E.
\
/
;
\
PnIGINAL
{
�-
\
)q� ()
\\\
E
: \
\E
\)
G\ 2�®
�'R)2lgG
b
),4#tGl:!
)}
;
\
PnIGINAL
m
E
W 4
W
d O
>
c U
3
m U 3
O C
6 « G
s
O
W
o m r
a m
a
d
E
oc
0
E
oc
m o E c
`� o' Ey
M
V
E nr
a .y
V
y
d
L
w
O
fryry.'
m
nOQ_
4'OQQC
tz
O
cad
m
E
M
A
a
01
o``V�'wsT
t m
U
ORIO NAL
>
c U
3
m U 3
O C
6 « G
s
o m r
a m
a
6
E
oc
m $ c
� 00mEH
E
oc
m o E c
`� o' Ey
v
Vv
E
E nr
a .y
Uv
VEn.-
nOQ_
4'OQQC
4Q
O
cad
�.Q
�
p
gJpi•�
E
_
m E
= vE6b
'>
a 6Ea
n
a o:EEEa
c
�
C G a
C
O L
2 tR
o..vUm�
.c
�j Ey`n.U°
"mom
V EyanvUg
n
O��"N
LRSO
CTjO
OLTL LL°
V
v
cod 6
T
S
o. -aEn�L �N�N
NVU90'O Oa COO ETN�.��y9
n nLv.00vv "'
ua t, m:9 cv@vd�5c Es3
g
99QN�OHZC^9
Cv
�. O.Ca�RNR�a
a
��°�. �4a
YEFa L.
6. N.v' a3 ..aOVLL
Ty.�NA
C60
v Ea'`T3=°m�'ncvi
E.4
i
p 6U'O OOL 4�. U E n
O L> •a J td
L
N
_T C" N T O. v T
X mom' n
Y
OX
OE5 Ua�O
�app
6i 906E 6y 6m>Lpp
W E a 4 G 0 0 0 0
a p=pa
L A'
a ��id`o
oo vD=
<_a`o H3y oo n°°S y=>3E
o
O�TfY Ja �a o'Oc
OO �WE���69._ nCQQ N'Q
6L
cvN��ir�JcU w<
a'_mW.E ...itl =�S Ey.•`�
ca�os
mw
� c sg
?o U ncv moEvvT
y
N
0 EVS a L a� 0 0 C
L a
N .'. O E td u 6 E n9 L'O a y
m V
0o3"od�FtL-cm..
�
Q O 6L a 'n N N a E EO
E
0 C O �OL
m "GiF AGO 3vC°
fC $c E°c'J >ES ovncc E'o3
av+EEnQ
s_ovnm $m nc.Eln
CJ
a
�
`
c
M
A
a
01
o``V�'wsT
t m
U
ORIO NAL
FT
A
u
e
w
YE
�N VL W�WTUNVN�
- c
c.p s°a oa_t„o. m
oO V'Tq^v-JOOTE u
'e o,Y o'y �v,yA�Es=wsa
o m
ti L O'N E T9 Y C j 9 C y
eOa0�2L cy
°.ca m -m t-_v�z�oaCE
S 6omow-ov2 od 4 w
E'>
_ b`oa
r ✓0ii 6 0 L L Y F � b 6 y Y_
_ c
'C'PE
b�?a-_� c
G6t'O �NW�U 66
o) -
i v �
NNL>6Ga E
$FC o� j so
V `v ` 5 > z f
_ Y =
E 2;?i ns� UUP»moo Z o c�
d s` 5 3 r o
a E
G'u
E ��o``°yE yoL`.na�na Sa °n
mA�Emb a'y> yi.1�Zc >
Q ebo �-ms "� ov,7 nit V 0 cy
o
0
c Vo n m S 8--'-'i
�0E of o
os V'b Eos
.WC V j
�p>aV�u;U€,e�m�6'V
U L6C j'N Qyiy9E Q=Q UQC
l%
F
r
O
ORIGINAL
°
N
> E
9
0-
m
�
W
uv
m
m 3 EY
U°
E
's aaa
v_
05p
,oE
E
a a'vm c
❑
e
6V❑
`❑
O C_
`❑
°
�
PGy C�a
n
a Es
80.
i
do-Ec
Em _
0 0
-
c„ N o,E
9
06Y -OL
a
v
o
YE.c5:c�c>mo5
c°'yE.4o.
omoyoE
m€
a
m€
a
Ebl! ac
p
o. -
Nm
V'Ey
aoU
Ham°
o
ENam
`c'EVry
NTOUTE
p9
O
TYmV
Ya
O
dU
Oa
4
Oa
4
Q LG U
6 m
V -i
Q
N U ❑
�N VL W�WTUNVN�
- c
c.p s°a oa_t„o. m
oO V'Tq^v-JOOTE u
'e o,Y o'y �v,yA�Es=wsa
o m
ti L O'N E T9 Y C j 9 C y
eOa0�2L cy
°.ca m -m t-_v�z�oaCE
S 6omow-ov2 od 4 w
E'>
_ b`oa
r ✓0ii 6 0 L L Y F � b 6 y Y_
_ c
'C'PE
b�?a-_� c
G6t'O �NW�U 66
o) -
i v �
NNL>6Ga E
$FC o� j so
V `v ` 5 > z f
_ Y =
E 2;?i ns� UUP»moo Z o c�
d s` 5 3 r o
a E
G'u
E ��o``°yE yoL`.na�na Sa °n
mA�Emb a'y> yi.1�Zc >
Q ebo �-ms "� ov,7 nit V 0 cy
o
0
c Vo n m S 8--'-'i
�0E of o
os V'b Eos
.WC V j
�p>aV�u;U€,e�m�6'V
U L6C j'N Qyiy9E Q=Q UQC
l%
F
r
O
ORIGINAL
A
W
E
R
E
Pa
m
E
r
J C
()Pi aINAL
w
>
a W
r
O O
E
m
E
E
m 0€
Ec
Zc
mE
E_
6
'OC
9
~
aCa
td
V O?
W
w�p6
9Y�
mE
D'y
mE
', o
m E
`oo
Ec`Oo
E
O
UO
b U'�
UD
b a=
UO
a
E_c
c c c�
E
be
oEr�o
a o��wa
EyUn
..mom
E Ey`o.am
-mom
m
U
U
C
°>
SLTV OQI
GIJR
itTLE
`o�
aFmFv
o��;c
aFm—no
��
av
� < m
cm
in < m
aamo
a`v
�L �L `J9
OW9Ca y"E�
>TyOO
00
9E
cm
a,a
b`�bOE Wsm`tdU
Nt
VIp 6
O_
E
.Q6
�°
E
E
E�vo
mL_
O v E" °�9
NLL d� Ga
m �G1N9
_ W
cs'3tb.9
S T
=mr°o
m°mboE
'�ati
wL•m,=
c z—
'C
y
V'u° OOE dyN
per_
6 dt yL
b
dV NO
"'m
'S
00
r°O
v93>E
om
Fc�.'o E..oENL'
&.2yr�c
u�_ mvv
a
.o Wo..aO°°
V
H W
G' n EOO m V t
o t5'«��
E$°
u �a
W45 -A Eos
=aq Ec�
tom R -9
won
E
`o TOAO dN°A
X00 M1'nA00`��L
�L>Oti b�N
L E'�O��b Oy
� OCO�EO
y =:
NNO
m'�smi0�3m
c.o� a9EEA°o
Q
N w`o.aom
'n om
o�v`o °cvcOemUi
V
oU-mss E.?o
�a`$o°irmn
�imLdE
ia`O
�
m
x
a
x
r
J C
()Pi aINAL
M
w9 9=
6
i W 00
R
i0 W O
s
c
$ E o
rc YV
v
a
W
o O_m
..
o
v= =a
>
ac
vo
O v
i O 9 w y y
W
O O c
6 EW4
E 6iE3 oEE
pCj
c
V Ey=O acY�
c
n
�
m d ai u
15 z15
9O% Y °
L N _
r
dYvou "� E�wN°-'Hong
>,a'a Ery oSv—.iv cD o9 °s`, u4o�
o
o
`.off
3 Ar
E
EEE
'a
s �40rcL own «ma oHL pCVCu
°
yy L G
y�E C
z
—
EoY `off E«8+
T.❑md>'ao2
o
mEE5a`���cc
9=«
N g W L N O
EG�. 'O L
L O N Op.o vvpi
N
ohp
' o-ma.e96b'c govv_v°„O
m Eox o'E —m9 av o._nu°oHE='To`�
nsY..
E
p��:rvnT—�C
41 L'i —CL 656WN�6CSL9d 69
N L
O
L
m
v
E
QRIG!NAL
IN
a
o
_ c a
N o c
yv E 'ESL �
t0 G U m
� � O
mEO you o
- a o n o
mu U E'1 nT'i o.
0
s
a aF�FZF =
y 0 p G L N N. L 6 A O T
p'N^NNc9T Q C00�°ONSext 940
`e E U s o€ c E° v o o m N 6 o y ❑ E
>i«sSc� >a o
° EVa y3 u v a v_°nV �o`ov s.�V °m= m _c o ePi
N o _
V > °c=a oo °
uEi d '` t-09 _t -2E o
C mU 'o coo dTp p'.�of °o «.t.WNtOO nN°iN �a AO«b= N ..
6 P O
Vl .b.CQ..L ANa��6AG�CC�9 C� div OOL �b q➢
2'E
°'n o��`E «Vcoao�v5._oo
o��Z`a o..
oo .3Z=v eoK
U Re E: 6°b°n -"°u'�=o._a ofi
eo
= o °vE °' c
n o -v vb `jt
`o vc°wc 4naa¢�o'�..�VEn'om a.nm
F ansa m i U`oE EE
0
o
x
4k
m
� f
U
OFlIGINAL
A
MM -1
1W
W
> > 131
° W
4 C
O
O C E
9
C O ❑
E � °
E v =
17
c s E e °
UD
c _ y
itl 3 � o
-
Za.
m` O e
$voy F F
O d
�99 y 9
6] L
_T
E° W E
p .' tom. 0 y 6 V VV t0 pPL j 1Y_- 5: 9
'p Lm mZoE°o yy L_oONL9
n�
y o'pe 'o `o `°Eca Ivo€v s
W N dG.S. OLgP � y
o ° 30?oo�A No Ec9 t
Z � •`- o
Y. y C u `O N E m O � O
y2� AVRNO°L u+NEa y� �L
L og os�'co n m�
n°E vm•'o m3. v'`onc �ow y�
Ny3yL
�9
F °Ew '�Zomooao �.�2d�a my
ry nom `_°� ::v.ZE_a �.o U3
Z 64
G'a� 6o:Z E5 nCi d¢�S ua`n�'
� '09'0^ ••
b a c W i d c
v
R �
7
m
R
v L
nNICaINAL
Ex
�
a m
.0
i A
O
�
o
E G«
dO
O
Y
O
O
O Et Lo,
O d0
❑
E
'O'o 32 '°
Ez
jr
V�
UO
'a�
UDa'
N3E
$c noau
= d C WE
as
..x9
3 O
v
cE'i=QV'3"�$
y
EY"O
off
be
O
cm35
6
w
E=
N
m
U
6 q
o
u F 0 6
mw
u
ms`,oyc
'E Y2'q
T%n�9a
�on°ya
aA°Co
~_d°N
dbo-��y
��N
@o
c9 cD °
s
@
=ta�E
_
E'E
Ev?Ez Em °
YCU
d
oog'd
yY�a=
m�adim�
o_E'=y>"
E
6 L Y8E
Et°.o
mw
°Tv
Emsu�W
E EmEE
U9cw sE o
c
�vadn.0
a
�❑°
EgtC
°�'3`�L`
m
tj
N
Fe
NRnaway'Y
oTwt0°c'C
L.
rPys
.,
'
6E
C�°9iLDY
EU
�ZTv
.W°{�p
i]
3E-vd€
VYQ
U
a oiO
v9onn3°""ew
5;.-
w mmtk ama
�v`v�9
E," ET
WO
6 Lp>O E'7G
pn
L GN�OQO
N'S ��Od'�7v
TtZWpVy
q0
nm—N
,�' v Y «
9.�d.�L=Cv
O .. 6•e .' Y _j L
�bLCW
W
NI p9'O
V dgv
oo. DSO
9C
5" w
.'n
°ILED
°Nd
mb.E
'.FaEE3dac.°
Fa3.b.ti.E£
�d`mc°-as°°m
i
ry
n
a
a
u
u
e
v L
nNICaINAL
71
A
h/Ya\l
W
?1
c
QR131NAL
Y
O
L
�
L °
9_
>
n
� v
c
me "
n
Epy
o
c
y,>
DoE
v
VDd
�3'
m
° n
c
�sE
�
�i0
U F3�
c
O
Vi
0
9
O O
's
6°OR mE
�pW O'00
0N>�66200C A
=
& E
ca°a a°b3 �
hazy Eo
m
E •-om
c
v E
° `o
c`6E ff
s
6 =E
b
9 V
3—
-
y
C60b
4'O
yAF 6�9OW TTpp
o
`aR t5
O
a 0
a^TE m
O
-
tg
`ON•- m6NpEo
Re
WfE vE
vt
a'9c
V>`s
L,2.0 E.��9.
OOG �i.YETYMbs
7E
V
54
c9
a0v
N YEV 1EVE6�.E
mac
a
h
4
a
c
QR131NAL
A
M
a
EA
w �
OZ
A W
O a Q C t y
0 C> p p 6
0 9 o E o
E �
E 1O o y m c
12 ° <N� sv M 'n
_ o �
„m sf E
0o zo¢ W s
w A„v>
�> N m as c°9
UD �$Z o
co n3 `€�tbEv'.s
'Vo
„2 c v o Epi —T
a C q G O CO
C O d CO WWd O O p C
L
T
T opo Ei E¢s
m $ c S E '4 P
� Cjo$_s na a
Z
gb
>C.n .q.o�zE G
o dAE
PUN67q >
V
A
V d Atv`bcgsv �
o q q
° O O O O n C C O
y— o
t O u 66e0. O.a. N
QL VONOCOgp�VG y21
> ENa� m�
z �r qz A
E
.. E,o �a¢�$o mEi
OC Na3Rr�C�a q2
k > � 9
O>
Qa W EEL p
m V
R
5
S
n
c
ORIGINAL
A
71
W
a
M
m
E
E
> 'n
o nlGINAI
o
3
m
a
n
6 >
t0
3R
�
E
m
A
o
i
do
o e
VO
EP
UO
v am
°v
o
�
c
a.
°
-
37i
A Y%O
4E
> N E
n E
-
3',
E Bonn
c a
oocca
Eol
E
`o �
aF �ft-o
m
dF cF-n
T
9
°Po
E'E
�qc
N
ice: G�
y
y W
6m
E
v `t E
v o
c
A
nv
.o
,p :G E
y��mc y6
i, ocE
o
t5
�%'=
e c'=.c O'E
U9tl oUv
o
-v
a
E
ra V,g❑�, e,
; `03�'�
A�
3 o=y''WA
WrE
�K
O �
C �
a
�
t
�
E
> 'n
o nlGINAI