Loading...
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