HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 069-19RESOLUTION NO. 06 9- 19
RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
7335 (PHASED) LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF PENSINGER
ROAD AND EAST OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD AND DENYING THE
APPEAL BY THE SIERRA CLUB
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of Title 16
of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, Sierra Club, filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7335 located on the
south side of Pensinger Road and east of South Allen Road, as shown on the attached
(Exhibit "B"); and
WHEREAS, Sierra Club, the appellant, filed a written appeal with the City Clerk on
March 14, 2019: and
WHEREAS, the City Council, through the City Clerk, set the time and place of the
hearing as Wednesday, May 22, 2019, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said
City Council on said appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner
provided in Title Sixteen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, testimony was heard during the public hearing of the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates, representing Enconto Gardens, LLC, filed an
application requesting approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map File No. 7335 (Phased)
on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield as shown on the attached (Exhibit "C");
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7335 (Phased) consists of
117 residential lots, 1 landscape lot, 1 sump lot, 1 drill site lot, and 1 park site lot on
approximately 40 acres for single family residential development, zoned R-1 (One
Family Dwelling) as shown on attached Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, said map included a request for modification to allow alternate lot
and street design; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set Thursday, December
6, 2018, at 5:30 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 Planning
Commission to consider the previously adopted Negative Declaration and the Project,
and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the December 6, 2018 hearing was continued to January 3, 2019 to
allow time for the applicant to complete the on-site posting; and
o``eAKt9N
Page 1 of 4 m
J
OR;G; AL
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2019, the Planning Commission, with the concurrence of
the applicant's second request, continued the public hearing to the regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2019, the Planning Commission, continued the public
hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of March 7, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on September 28,2018; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's
CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the Project
would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative
Declarations were prepared and approved by the City Council on December 14, 2005
and March 14, 2007, in conjunction with Project Nos. GPA/ZC 05-0943 and GPA/ZC 06-
0925, respectively, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony,
and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission's deliberation,
and action.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning 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 facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and
special studies (if any), and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony
at the above referenced public hearing support the findings contained in this
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby make the following finding:
1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project
were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in
the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to
the hearing.
2. Staff determined that the proposed activity is a project and initial studies were
prepared for the original projects (Project Nos. GPA/ZC 05-0943 and GPA/ZC 06-
0925) of the subject property and a Mitigated Negative Declarations were adopted
on December 14, 2005 and March 14, 2007, respectively by the City Council for the
original project, and duly noticed for public review.
3. Said Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Project is the appropriate
environmental document to accompany approval of the Project. In accordance
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental documentation
is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed,
there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be
undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified. The Project
By: Laquez\S:\TRACTSV335\IAppeal\CC Appeal Hearing\7335Reso Appeal to CC.docx aFgAKFgN
Page 2 of 4
r m
U
oRN�fVQL
will not significantly impact the physical environment because mitigation measures
relating to GPA/ZC 05-0943 and GPA/ZC 06-0925 have been incorporated into the
Project.
4. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an
area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems.
Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots
or parcels to be created.
5. The application, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. (Subdivision Map Act
Section 66473.5) The proposed density and intensity of development are consistent
with the LR Low Density Residential) land use classification on the property.
Proposed road improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element. The
overall design of the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies
of all elements of the General Plan.
6. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to
Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 A.3. The applicant has provided
evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right
owners' signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.3, if the
party's right of surface entry has not been expressly waived by recorded document
prior to recordation of any final map, a drill site reserved for mineral access has
been provided and notice of such as required in Section 16.20.060 A.3 has been
made to each mineral owner and lessee of record.
7. In accordance with BMC 16.28.170 H, Windermere Street functions as a major
street as shown on the Project; therefore, the abutting double frontage lots are
reasonable due to controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance, and
setback, and are approved with construction of a 6 -foot high masonry wall
separating the residential lot and the major street.
8. The request for modifications are consistent with sound engineering practices or
subdivision design features.
9. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide
for the public health, welfare, and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The decision of the Planning Commission is upheld, subject to mitigation measures
and conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit A.
3. The appeal is denied.
4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7335 is hereby approved, subject to the mitigation
measures and conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit A.
------000-----
By: TJaquez \ 5ATRACT5\7335\I Appeal\CC Appeal Hearing\7335_Reso_ Appeal to CC.docx gAKF
Page 3 of 4 0 9�
r m
OHId.NAL
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on May 22, 2019, by the
following vote:
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
COUNCILMEMBER. Q\YQ,YQ �Linl1A)ZS Sm,ii> ;s�llryq p isCr
NOEa COUNCILMEMBER:
BBTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: F-(c2mnn
COUNCILMEMBER: y.�tsY
aW jbmjk,f0
JUL E D KIS, CMC -
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROV MAY 2 2 2019 _
A—
KARE GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
RICHARD IGER
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: (Attached)
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Location Map with Zoning
C. Tentative Map
D. Correspondence
D-1 Sierra Club comments received on February 21, 2019
D-2 Memorandum from Staff dated February 21, 2019
D-3 Letter to Appeal from the Sierra Club dated March 14, 2019
D-4 Correspondence dated April 17, 2019
By: TJaquez \ S:\TRACT5V335V Appeal\CC Appeal Hearing\7335 Reso Appeal to CC.docx
Page 4 of 4 aF9AKF
J
im
ORL;,NAI
EXHIBIT "A"
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7335 (PHASED)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE to Subdivider/Applicant: B is important that you review and comply with
requirements and deadlines listed in the "FOR YOUR INFORMATION" packet thatis provided
separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and
departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.
PUBLIC WORKS
1. In a letter dated June 29, 2018, the applicant requested deviations from the following
ordinance and policy requirements:
1.1 SDM reference Block Lengths (Sec. 16.28.160.A) - Request Burnham Street and
Piano Drive to exceed 1000 feet in length. Recommendation: APPROVE lengths of
streets as there are intervening intersections.
2. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines
and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and
policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.
3. The development shall comply with all applicable conditions of the GPA/ZC's 03-1373,
05-0943, and 06-0925. Pay local mitigation fees (Contact Traffic Engineering for detail
costs and create major bridge and thoroughfare districts as stated in referenced
GPA/ZC's.
4. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval:
4.1 A drainage study for the entire subdivision.
4.2 A sewer study to include providing service to the entire subdivision and showing
what surrounding areas may be served by the main line extensions. Submit
verification to the City Engineer of the existing sewer system's capacity to accept
the flows to be generated from the development into Windermere Street and
Buena Vista Road. Additional sewer lines or alternate mitigation measures, such as
payment of sewer capacity mitigation fees equal to $350 per equivalent dwelling
unit, may be required.
4.3 The subdivision is located within the McAllister Ranch PSA and is subject to said PSA
fees.
4.4 If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In
order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield's NPDES permit and to
prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events to
the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to
the river or a canal shall install City approved BMP's.
5. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans:
5.1 Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.
5.2 Per Resolution 035-13 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with
the "complete streets" policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and
bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap
less than'/, mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract
will be required.
gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/s:\TRACTSV335\1PC Doc5V335_Exh A.docx O N
> M
r m
U
OR3AgL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 2 of 19
5.3 The subdivider shall either construct the equivalent full width landscaped median
island in Allen Road for the site's frontage or pay $100 per linear feet (their
proportionate share of the cost for the future construction of the median as
determined by City Engineer in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1.b of the
Subdivsion and Engineering Design Manual). Median islands shall be designed by
the first tract to be approved on a side. The medians may be constructed by the
first tract on a side, or the median island fees shall be. The total cost may be
apportioned between the phases and paid prior to recordation of each phase if
he elects to pay his share of the costs for the future construction. Left turn median
restrictors shall be constructed by the first tract in.
5.4 Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all
arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal
locations.
5.5 In addition to other paving requirements, on and off site road improvements may
be required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn channelization
into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or development), where
warranted and as directed by the City Engineer. Said channelization shall be
developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the
current CalTrons standards for the design speed of the roadway in question.
5.6 Off-site pavement and striping construction will be required to transition from the
proposed/ultimate on-site improvements to the existing conditions at the time
construction commences. Transitions must be designed in accordance with City
Standards and/or the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. If existing conditions
change during the period of time between street improvement plan approval
and construction commencement, the street improvement plans must be revised
and approved by the City Engineer.
5.7 Right turn deceleration lanes are required on arterials at local streets.
5.8 The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced with respect to the required
improvements along the tract frontages. Therefore, in order to promote orderly
development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of
frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of each final map for any phase that
does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost
of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed
into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the
use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of
improvements. The final per lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's
estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to
construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements,
with approval of the City Engineer.
5.9 The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will
occur in the order shown on the map with Phase 1 first, then Phase 2, then Phase
3, etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to
recordation of each final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of
improvements to be done with that particular phase.
5.9.1. The following shall occur with Phase 1:
5.9.1.1. Construct Windermere Street for the full extent of the street
lying within the tract's boundary.
gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/ 5:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335 Enh A.docx 01�N
� T
� m
U
OR;G,ryAL
Exhibit "A"
VTM 7335 )Phased)
Page 3 of 19
5.9.2. The following shall occur with Phase 2:
5.9.2.1. Construct Allen Road for the full extent of the street lying
within the tract's boundary.
If the number of phases or the boundaries of the phases are changed, the
developer must submit to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the number and
configuration of the proposed phases. The City Engineer will review the exhibit
and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with
each new phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the
new conditions.
5.10 The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary
of the tract are constructed to city standards and he will reconstruct streets within
the boundary if not to standard.
5.11 Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36
feet wide consisting of 2-12' lanes, 2-4' paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per
side of either AC or other dust proof surface.
5.12 The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance
with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24, 1997.
5.13 In order to preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction
of sediments from construction or from storm events, Best Management Practices
for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act are required.
5.14 All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and/or slatted chain link
fence and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building
setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.
5.15 Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department
requirements.
6. The following must be reflected in the final map design:
6.1 A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and
collectors.
Prior to recording the first final map:
7.1 The City Council must have taken final action for inclusion of this tract within the
Consolidated Maintenance District.
7.2 The developer is required to construct an improvement which is on the facilities list
for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee on Allen Road. The
developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this
project. The developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City
Engineer, verifying the cost of the right-of-way to be acquired. This credit is not
available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and
accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this
acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.
7.3 If it becomes necessary to obtain any off site right of way and if the subdivider is
unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up-
front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and
post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.
�gAK,
Prepared by TJcquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335V PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx r
r m
J
ORuAAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 4 of 19
7.4 Pay local mitigation fees.
8. Prior to recording each final map:
8.1 The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by
the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will
prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by
the subdivider and accepted by the City.
8.2 The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by
the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing
information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated
maintenance district. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to
the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the
maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract. Said covenant shall be
provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings. If the parcel
is already within a consolidated maintenance district the owner shall update the
maintenance district documents, including a Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant,
which shall be signed and notarized.
9. Prior to Notice of Completion:
9.1 The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris
removed.
10. Unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer, during the engineering design of
construction plans, the flowline-to-flowline width of local streets shall be as follows:
10.1 36 feet: For all the streets ending in Cul -De -Sacs.
10.2 40 feet: All local street segments not mentioned in 12.1
Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall record a covenant affecting
each lot prohibiting the pumping and taking of groundwater from the property for any
use off the property; provided, however, such pumping and taking may be carried out
by the authorized urban water purveyor which provides water service to the subdivided
land, or by a county -wide governmental entity with water banking powers, and such
pumping is part of an adopted water banking program that will not have a significant
adverse impact on the groundwater levels or diminish the quality of water underlying
the subdivision.
Orderly development and as required by BMC Section 16.40.101.B.
12. The City's normal fire protection service flows are 2500 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). In
certain areas and in certain zoning, fire flow requirements (as determined by the City
and/or County Fire Department) are in excess of the 2500 g.p.m. limit. Fire flow
requirement in excess of 2500 g.p.m. shall require developer fees of $0.50/g.p.m./acre
in excess of 2500 g.p.m. or equivalent facilities. Prior to recordation of each phase,
subdivider shall submit to the Public Works Dept. verification that fees have been paid.
1�gAKF9
Prepared by TJoquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx T
r m
J U
OR;uftvAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 5 of 19
13. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit a water will serve letter
and confirmation from the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department that water
fees have been paid to the Water Resources' satisfaction. The water will serve letter
will not be issued until water availability, inspection, and meter fees have been paid in
full.
14. Prior to recordation of final map for Phase 3 of the development, the owner shall enter
into a purchase agreement with the City of Bakersfield for a domestic water facility site
to be located on Lot(s) 28 & 29 of Phase 3 for Tract 7335 (or any other lot acceptable
to City Water Resources Department). Developer will deed finished lot to City within 30
days of recordation of final map for Phase 3. The water facility site of(s) shall be finished,
graded and compacted, and shall include full utility service connection points for each
lot, including but not limited to a 480 volt, 3 phase PG&E electrical service, a 12 -inch
minimum storm drain connection, and a 12 -inch minimum potable water main from the
property line to the nearest 12 -inch or larger existing City Water main. Developer shall
also provide adequate room for a future standard commercial drive approach and a
6 -foot high minimum split face block wall at rear and sides of property. Finished well
site shall meet City Water operational service requirements and shall adhere to City
planning and building department requirements.
15. Any drainage basins required for the development need to be included with plans in
detail to be reviewed for compliance to City of Bakersfield standards and specification
by Water Resources staff.
FIRE SAFETY DIVISION
16. Pipeline Easements.
16.1 Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements
or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a
notation that structures including accessory buildings and swimming pools, are
prohibited within the easements and record a corresponding covenant.
16.2 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline
easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show on the final map that no habitable
portion of a structure may be built within 50 feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or
refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover, and record a corresponding
covenant.
16.3 No structure may be within 40 feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined
product, within 48 inches or more of cover. If a pipeline meets this criteria, the 40 -foot
setback line shall be shown in the final map and a corresponding covenant shall be
recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that is affected.
16.4 No habitable portion of a structure may be built within thirty (30) feet of a crude
oil pipeline operating at twenty percent (20%) or greater of its design strength.
1�gAKF9
Prepared by Laquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx r
r m
OBf3,NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 6 of 19
16.5 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 250 feet of the
pipeline easements, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the
pipelines on all lots of this subdivision within 250 feet of the pipelines.
Public health, safety and welfare.
RECREATION AND PARKS
17. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall dedicate land with free and
clear title to the City of Bakersfield based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5
acres per 1,000 population in accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon
recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Prior
to recordation of a final map, the subdividershall enter into an agreement with the City
to implement and satisfy this condition.
• Subdivider shall dedicate 0.93 acres;
• In addition to the dedication of land, the subdivider shall dedicate 4.7 acres of
additional land within the boundaries of the tract for the park.
BMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to
dedicate park land, pay an in -lieu fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in
order to satisfy the City's park land ordinance. Staff is recommending this condition in
accordance with BMC Chapter 15.80.
18. Subdivider shall be responsible for improving streets adjacent to the park site to City
standards.
Orderly development.
19. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall construct a 6 -foot masonry
wall along the park boundary adjacent to residential lots as shown on the tentative
tract. Wall to be measured from the highest adjacent grade.
CITY ATTORNEY
20. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not
limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the
applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant' herein) agrees to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents,
employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City' herein) against any and all
liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any
of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way
arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any
CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether
imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY's sole active negligence or willful
misconduct.
o1` 9AKP,9N
Prepared by TJoquez/ 5:\TRACTS\7335\I PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx ,n
r m
O
OgiwNAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 7 of 19
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any
decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply
regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling
under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in
its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend
the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to
use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.
PLANNING
21. This subdivision shall comply with all provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and
applicable resolutions, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for
the subdivision map was deemed complete per Government Code Section 66474.2.
22. The subdivision shall be recorded in no more than 4 phases. Phases shall be identified
numerically and not alphabetically.
Orderly development.
23. The following modifications are approved:
23.1 Double frontage lots for: Phase 1, Lots 7-9 and Lots 16-18
23.2 Block length in excess of 1000 feet for Burnham Street and Piano Drive
23.3 Reduce required 140' rear lot depth for lots adjacent to Agricultural zone, subject
to BZA approval of a modification to reduce the structure setback from an
Agricultural zone.
Note: All other City standards apply. Orderly development.
24. Mineral Rights: Prior to recordation of the first final map, the following shall apply:
a. Subdivider shall provide the minimum 2 -acre drill site drill site reservation as shown on
the tentative subdivision map. The drill site shall be either recorded with the first final
map or prior to or currently with a final map, subdivider shall:
i. Record a covenant encumbering the drill site as such;
ii. Record a covenant of all lots of this subdivision within 500 feet of the drill site
disclosing the drill site location and possible activities;
iii. Construct a six-foot high masonry wall with gate access around the drill site as
shown on the tentative tract. However, upon approval by the Planning Director,
wall construction may be defer until adjacent residential lots are recorded. Wall
height shall be measured to the highest adjacent grade.
iv. Have covenants reviewed approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director
prior to recording.
Required to verify compliance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. and orderly development.
BAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\ I PC Docs\7335_Exh A. docx O N�
r m
U r
OR,3.NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 8 of 19
25. In the event a previously undocumented well is uncovered or discovered on the project
site, the subdivider is responsible to contact the Department of Conservation's Division
of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). The subdivider is responsible for any
remedial operations on the well required by DOGGR. Subdivider shall also be subject
to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080 (B.)
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.
26. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 50D feet of the drill site,
subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the drill site (Lot "C") on all
lots of this subdivision within 500 feet of them.
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.
27. Prior to recordation of the final map that contains an abandoned well, the subdivider
shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Director that the abandoned well
plug been leak tested by an independent, third party, qualified leak testing company
and that it shows no sign of leakage. If there is evidence of leakage (Well: "Frazier" 26-
24), re -abandonment of the well shall be required to current regulations and to the
satisfaction of DOGGR, confirmation of which the subdivider shall provide to the
Planning Director. Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.
28. Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any final map containing abandoned oil
well, subdivider shall provide a covenant disclosing the location of abandoned oil wells
and the 10 -foot non -buildable radii shall be recorded. The covenant shall be submitted
to the City Attorney and Planning Director for review and approval prior to recordation
of the final map.
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.
Biological Impact Mitigation Measures
29. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a qualified biologist survey the
location for species covered under the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan incidental take permit for urban development Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin
kit fox, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, & Bakersfield cactus) and comply with the
mitigation measures of the permit. Survey protocol shall be that recommended by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Developer shall be subject to additional
mitigation measures recommended by the qualified biologist. A copy of the survey shall
be provided to the Community Development Department and wildlife agencies no
more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance.
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 will be
gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx T
r m
OH;,1NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 9 of 19
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. Mitigation measure.
30. The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it
unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50
C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as
allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of
the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the take provisions of these
laws generally requires that project -related disturbance at active nesting territories be
reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 - August 15,
annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive
effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered "taking" and
is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.
a. To avoid impacts to burrowing owl, prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey
shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) by the
Project applicant of a subdivision or site plan review, following the survey
methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC, 1993).
A copy of the survey shall also be submitted to the City of Bakersfield, Planning
Division.
b. If the survey results the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading; including
staging, clearing, and grubbing, surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a
qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of the of the Project
commencing and that the surveys be conducted in a sufficient area around the
work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A
sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected by
the Project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be
affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the
Project applicant identifies active nests, the CDFW shall be notified and
recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed and a copy submitted to
City of Bakersfield, Planning Division.
c. If any ground disturbing activities will occur during the burrowing owl nesting season
(approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows
are present within the Project footprint, implementation of avoidance measures are
warranted. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant must follow
CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). If the Project applicant proposes to evict
0AKF9N
Prepared by TJaquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx 81
u
OBiu,tvAl
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 10 of 19
burrowing owls that may be present, the CDFW recommends passive relocation
during the non -breeding season.
Mitigation measure.
Mitigation/Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 05-0943
Air Quality
31. To ensure that Project emissions are minimized, the following measures have either been
applied to the Project through the URBEMIS Model or will be implemented in
conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) rules.
The applicant/developer of the Project site shall submit documentation to the Planning
Department prior to Issuance of any building permit that they will/have met the
following mitigation measures:
A. PM 10 Mitigation Measures
As the Project will be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust
control measures will be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and
construction phases. The mitigation measures to be taken are as follows:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for
construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water,
chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or
vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively
stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
• All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill,
and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions
utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the
building shall be wetted during demolition.
• When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, and
effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard
space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
• All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt
from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary
brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by
sufficient wetting to limit to visible dust emissions). (Use of blower devices is expressly
forbidden).
• Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface
of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust
emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
�gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/S:\TRACTS\7335\IPC Docs\7335_Fxh A.docx O N
� T
r n
J
OA;.;,fvAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 11 of 19
• With urban area, track out shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more
feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
• Any construction site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout
and track -out.
• Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will
exceed the SJVAPCD 20% opacity requirement.
Enhanced and Additional Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM -10
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved road to 15 mph; and
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
• Track out will be prevent by one of the following:
• A Grizzly with rails, pipes, or grates to dislodge debris off of exiting vehicles,
• A layer of washed gravel at one inch or larger in diameter, three inches deep,
• Extension of paved road at least 100 feet from publicly maintained road, or
• Installation of a wheel washer;
• Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas;
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (regardless
of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation Vill's 20 percent
opacity limitation); and
• Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any
one time.
B. Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:
• Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers' specifications.
• Where possible electric equipment shall be used in lieu of diesel or gas powered
equipment.
• Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well
as during established lunch hours.
C. Design Features Mitigation Measures
These mitigation measures are based upon those available in the URBEMIS 2002
emissions modeling program. These measures provide emission reductions for the
proposed Project's long term emissions (reductions once the Project has been
completed):
• The developer will provide:
• Adequate street lighting.
• Sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths and pedestrian signs and signalization where
appropriate.
• Pedestrian safety designs/infrastructures shall be provided at crossings.
• Transit shelters and/or benches, turnouts, signs, and displays shall be provided as
needed.
1�gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/S:\TRACTS\7335\IPC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx O T
r m
OR;3,NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 fPhosed)
Page 12 of 19
Cultural Resources:
32. If cultural resources are encountered during construction, a qualified archaeologist
shall be retained by the developer to evaluate the significance of the resources and to
formulate a mitigation program if necessary. The archaeologist shall coordinate with
the City of Bakersfield Planning Department.
33. If human remains ore discovered during grading or construction activities, work would
cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human
remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find
and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public
Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the
remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
34. With the submittal of tentative subdivision map applications for areas containing oilfield
equipment and facilities and/or soils discolored by oil or fuel (as identified in the Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site, McIntosh &
Associates, July 2005), the applicant shall submit Phase II ESA's. The Phase II ESA's shall
contain soils sampling results verifying the presence or absence of hazardous materials
to the satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield Fire Department (Prevention Services
Division). In the event hazardous materials are present, a Remediation Plan shall be
submitted together with the tentative subdivision map application to the satisfaction of
the City of Bakersfield Fire Department (Prevention Services Division).
Transportation/Traffic
35. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall pay the applicable
Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) to the satisfaction of the City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department.
36. Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not paid for by the
Regional Transportation Impact Fee nor included with normal development
improvements) as indicated in the project traffic study (TPG Consulting Incorporated,
June 2005). An estimate and fee schedule should be developed by the applicant and
approved prior to recordation of a map or issuance of the first building permit. The
following proportionate share contributions shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first
building permit:
a. Old River Road & Stockdale Highway: Restripe and widen to provide 3 left turn
lanes, 4 through lanes and 1 right turn lane on the west bound approach. The
project share shall be 2.21% of the cost of the above improvements.
b. Ming Avenue & Buena Vista Road: Restripe and widen to provide 21eft turn lanes,
4 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane on the east bound approach; 2left turn lanes,
eAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/S:\TRACTS\7335\IPC Docs\7335 Exh A.docx m
r m
ORiGAAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 13 of 19
4 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane on the west bound approach; 2 left turn lanes,
4 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane on the north bound approach; 2left turn lanes,
4 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane on the south bound approach. The project
share shall be 2.63% of the cost of the above improvements.
c. Buena Vista Road & Chamber Boulevard: Install traffic signal. The project share shall
be 8.1 % of the cost of this improvement.
Note: These mitigation measures go beyond current standards. Alternate forms of
mitigation may be considered when needed at the 2025 study horizon. The above fees
would contribute toward that future mitigation.
Public Works:
37. Prior to approval of any development plan, improvement plan, or application for a lot
line adjustment, the following shall occur:
37.1. Provide fully executed dedication for Allen Road to Arterial standards and
Pensinger Road and Windermere Street to Collector standards, for the full
frontages of the area within the GPA/ZC area. Dedications shall include sufficient
widths for expanded intersections and additional areas for landscaping as
directed by the City Engineer. Submit a current title report with the dedication
documents. If a tentative subdivision map over the entire GPA/ZC area is
submitted, dedication can be provided with the map.
37.2. A comprehensive drainage study is to be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. Site any drainage retention facility on the periphery of the GPA/ZC area
to facilitate future expansion or consolidation of drainage facilities as adjacent
area develops. The study shall be approved and any required retention site and
necessary easements dedicated to the City. The City will allow no more than one
publicly -maintained sump per 80 acres. Provide an easement for the ultimate
retention basin site, along with necessary easements for the transportation of
drainage water to the site.
37.3. Submit verification to the City Engineer of the existing sewer system's capability to
accept the additional flows to be generated through development under the
new land use and zoning.
38. Payment of median fees for the arterial frontage of the property within the GPA/ZC
area will be required upon development. These fees may be paid prior to recordation
of any map or approval of improvement plans.
39. Access to the arterial and collector streets will be limited and determined at time of
division or development. Determination of whether a right turn lane is required at the
access street(s) will also be made at the time of division or development. A full access
opening will only be considered if the developer funds and installs a traffic signal at the
o�gAKF'N
Prepared by TJaquez/S:\TRACTS\7335\7 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx
r m
OR;3,NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 14 of 19
site entrance. Said signal will only be permitted if a signal synchronization study is
submitted and approved, which shows progression is not adversely affected.
40. The entire area covered by this General Plan Amendment shall be included in the
Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the
Consolidated Maintenance District with submittal of any development plan, tentative
subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application for a lot line adjustment for any portion
of the GPA/ZC area.
41. With the development of the project area, approved, improved access to the site must
be provided. The required improvements shall be 32 feet of paving meeting City design
standards for a collector road, with 8 -foot graded shoulders. If it becomes necessary
to obtain any off site right of way and if the developer is unable to obtain the required
right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up -front costs for eminent domain
proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and
improvement of said right of way.
42. The Developer will be responsible for their proportionate share of the cost of the Buena
Vista Canal crossings at Panama Lane and Windermere Street.
43. The Panama Lane, Pensinger Road and Windermere Street crossings of the Buena Vista
Canal need widening. Developer shall aid in the formation of a Major Bridge and
Thoroughfare District for the widening of the crossings.
Mitigation/Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 06.0925
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Air Quality Mitigation Measures:
44. Upon submittal of tentative tract or site plan for approval, the applicant/developer of
the project site shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that they
will/have met the following air quality mitigation measures:
• Water all unpaved or haul road surfaces as needed.
• Limit speed on all unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Water any exposed ground surfaces as needed.
• Stabilize all disturbed areas including inactive storage piles on an as needed basis.
• Maintain at least a 6 inch freeboard space during transport of materials and/or
cover and wet to limit dust emissions.
• Remove mud or dirt accumulations on public roadways immediately when track
out exceeds 50 or more feet as well as at the end of the work day.
• Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will
exceed the SJVAPCD 20% opacity requirement.
Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures
�gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\I PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx TO T
r m
J
OR�G:trAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 15 of 19
• Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers' specification.
• Where possible electric equipment shall be used in lieu of diesel or gas powered
equipment.
Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well as
during established lunch hours. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.
Cultural Impact Mitiaation Measures
45. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a
qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for further evaluation. Mitigation for
potentially significant cultural resource impacts.
46. If human remains were discovered during grading or construction activities, work would
cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human
remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find
and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public
Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the
remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately.
Mitigation for potentially significant cultural resource impacts.
Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:
47. Prior to the issuance of any building permit within the GPA/ZC area, the developer shall
pay the applicable Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) to as adopted at time of
development. Mitigation for potentially significant traffic and circulation impacts.
48. Prior to issuance of the first building permit within the GPA/ZC area, the developer shall
pay the proportionate share contributions for the intersection and roadway
improvements not covered by the RTIF as identified in Tables 7 and 8 of the project
traffic study (TPG Consulting, January 2005) and in the following tables:
oFeAKe9s
Prepared by TJaquez/S:\TRACTS\7335\IPC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx T
r m
ONGAAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 16 of 19
FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL MITIGATION
FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL MITIGATION
Mitigation for potentially significant traffic and circulation impacts
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Public Works:
49. Along with the submittal of any development plan, prior to approval of improvement
plans, or with the application for a lot line adjustment or parcel merger, the following
shall occur:
a. Provide fully executed dedication for Windermere Street to collector standards and
Allen Road to arterial standards for the full frontage of the area within the GPA
request. Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and
additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Submit a current
title report with the dedication documents. If a tentative subdivision map over the
entire GPA/ZC area is submitted, dedication can be provided with the map. For
orderly development.
11gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/5:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx T
r m
ORIG7vAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 17 of 19
b. This GPA/ZC area is too small to support its own storm drainage sump. The City will
allow no more than one sump per 80 acres: therefore, this GPA/ZC area must be
included within the drainage area of adjoining property. Submit a comprehensive
drainage study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The drainage
area to be covered in the comprehensive drainage study will be larger than the
GPA/ZC area - the City is willing to aid the developer in the formation of a Planned
Drainage Area to provide a mechanism for the reimbursement of oversizing costs to
the developer. For orderly development.
c. Submit a comprehensive sewer study to be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for the initial extension of the sewer
line to serve the property. This sewer line must necessarily be sized to serve a much
larger area that the project area. This area is within the McAllister Ranch Planned
Sewer Area; any sewer improvements for the PSA are eligible for reimbursement
from future connection fees within the PSA. For orderly development.
d. In order to preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of
sediments from construction or from storm events, all retention and detention basins
(sumps) shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or
minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments to the sump. This
device shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and shall provide the
greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost. For
orderly development.
50. The entire area covered by this General Plan Amendment shall be included in the
Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the
Consolidated Maintenance District with submittal of any development plan, tentative
subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application fora lot line adjustment forany portion
of this GPA area. For orderly development.
51. Construct full improvements for the north side of Panama Lane along the frontage of
the 40 acre parcel to the east of the GPA/ZC area (APN52417014). If the adjacent Tract
6706 constructs these improvements first, this condition will be considered as met. If
prior to recordation of the first map, a new GPA/ZC is approved related to this previously
approved GPA/ZC #06-0925 condition as stated above, this condition shall abide by
the requirements of the newly approved GPA/ZC. For orderly development.
52. Payment of median fees for the arterial frontage of the property within the GPA/ZC
request is required prior to recordation of any map or approval of any improvement
plan for the GPA/ZC area. For orderly development.
53. The tract design shall accommodate the access provided by the design of approved
Tentative Tract 6578 to the north. For orderly development.
54. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off site right of way and if the developer is unable
to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the upfront costs for
gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_Exh A.docx OkNS
r m
OR G;NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 18 of 19
eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the
purchase and improvement of said right of way. For orderly development.
55. Local Mitigation: Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not
paid for by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee nor included with normal
development improvements) as indicated in Tables 7 and 8 of the traffic study. An
estimate and fee schedule should be developed by the applicant and approved prior
to recordation of a map or issuance of a building permit. Proportionate shares from the
study as follows: For orderly development.
55.1. Stockdale Hwy & Old River Rd, Add 1 SBL, 3.71%share
55.2. Panama Ln & Buena Vista Rd, Add 1 WBL, 0.55% share
55.3. Panama Ln, Allen Rd to Windermere St, add 2lanes, 0.36% share
55.4. Panama Ln, Windermere St to Buena Vista Rd, add 2 lanes, 0.59% share
Notes: NB - northbound,SB - south bound, WB -west bound, EB - eastbound,
L- Left turn lane, T - Through lane, R - Right turn lane
Conditions of Approval
Zoning Modification No. 18-0276
56. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not
limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the
applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents,
employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all
liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any
of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way
arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any
CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed
by the City, or not, except for CITY'S sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any
decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply
regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling
under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in
its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend
the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to
use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.
57. This zoning modification allows dwellings with a 25 -foot rear yard setback where a
minimum 50 feet is required when adjoining property zoned agricultural (I 7.08.150.A)
on 17 residential lots in the R-1 (One -Family Dwelling Zone) district generally located at
6001 Windermere Street (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7335) as depicted on
attached Exhibits B and C.
1<gAKF9
Prepared by TJaquez/ S:\TRACTS\7335\1 PC Docs\7335_&h A.docx p
r m
OB.;.NAL
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7335 (Phased)
Page 19 of 19
58. The developer shall construct a 6 -foot fall masonry wall along the southern boundary
of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 7335, where adjacent to property zoned A (Agriculture).
59. The developer shall record or caused to be recorded on the affected properties, a
covenant disclosing the existence or potential for livestock on adjacent land zoned A
(Agriculture).
�gAKg9
Prepared by TJaquez/ 5:\TRACTS\7335V PC Docs\7335_Fxh A.dacx p N�
n
J J
oa�a,rvAf
--------------
a...,,V.
...........................
UA
or
w
\
§
�!
�
m°
Ln
■
-
nM&Or
\
_
.�x0
/�%
°
| a/
\
\
z
§
§
,
,�
if
H;,
. . \ §
w!
4:
»
��
it.,
w«`4:
& g,I
z®9
�
w4a
»
w!
\/
\�
§
§
,
,�
if
H;,
. . \ §
��
it.,
& g,I
EXHIBIT D
o``8AKF9�
r m
v LORv�tvA
ECEIVE
FEB 2 1 2019
CITY OF BAKERSFI'tLD
PLANNING DEPARPVENT
y
'A �VEAH CHAPTER
P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
February 21, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Tony Jaquez
Community Development Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Tentative Tract 7335
Dear Mr. Jaquez:
The Sierra Club has reviewed available documents about the City's Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for Tentative Tract 7335, a project on 40.73 acres generally south of
Pensinger Road and east of South Allen Road consisting of 117 single-family residential
units, 1 landscape lot, 1 sump lot, 1 drill site lot, and i park site lot.
The City's analysis of this project relies on two much earlier negative declarations
(NDs), one from 2005 for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No.05-0943 (05-
0943) and the other from 2006 for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No.06-0925
(06-0925). We have a number of comments:
• The Sierra Club has an existing agreement with the developer of the 05-0943
property, one small sliver of the Tract 7335 project. The agreement requires the
developer to pay a $1500 per house "cumulative air quality impact fee" (to the
Rose Foundation) which at this point may perhaps be offset by SJVAPCD Rule
9510. In addition, as mitigation for farmland conversion, the agreement requires
the developer of the 05-0943 property to pay a $2000 per acre "agricultural
mitigation fee" (to Sequoia Riverlands Trust) with certain offsets. As best we can
tell at this point, this property has been partially built out by Centex via Tract
6578. However, obligations for the remainder still stand. In particular, the
remaining balance of the "agricultural mitigation fee" is $64,088 to be paid when
new development of the 05-0943 property begins, according to Centex.
• The Sierra Club agreement only requires the developer to offer solar
photovoltaics as an option. Title 24 will require solar PV on new residences
o�gAKE9N
r
T
r m
J
OR;3;NAL
starting next year, and the City should require it on all new houses in this project
to help ensure enforcement.
• The City's exclusive reliance on the Negative Declarations is unreasonable
because it does not consider climate change. As such, the City should prepare a
supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND to adequately analyze the Project's
impact on climate change.
• The City should also reconsider the Project's impact on biological resources in
light of both new development patterns and climate change.
• The City's exclusive reliance on the Negative Declarations is unreasonable
because it does not consider the air pollution impact of PM 2.5, a pollutant whose
health impact has recently been documented as severe (see, for example,
• The two NDs that make up the project MND are thirteen and fourteen years old
and are substantially dated. Many new laws and regulations have been
mandated and implemented since these NDs were approved. For example,
there is no mention of the Valley Air District's Rule 9510, the Indirect Source
Review rule. Will this project be subject to Rule 9510? How will this project
impact AB 32, SB 32, SB 350, SB 375, and other major newer regulations? The
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is out of date. Will this
project be subject to the old MBHCP and will this outdated plan be sufficient to
reduce impacts appropriately? How will this project address affordable housing
requirements of state law, for example in SB 35, AB 72, and others? Title 24 has
been repeatedly updated since then, updates that are not reflected in this
project's MND. These two old negative declarations are grossly insufficient as an
informational document.
• The Sierra Club submitted pre -approval comments on both the old NDs used as
MND for this project. The 05-0943 submission is dated September 15, 2005, and
the 06-0925 submission is dated February 6, 2007. Given that no new mitigation
measures beyond those in the old NDs have been proposed and that the MND
contains no new information, our old submitted letters seem at least as relevant
as the two old NDs that make up the current MND. We resubmit both of these
letters for consideration for this TT 7335 project.
• The City must prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR for this project.
Specific additional comments follow.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Global warming is a serious issue, perhaps the most serious issue that we as a species
will ever have to face. Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies writes, "The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any
previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could
make tragic consequences unavoidable." Many scientists say that the world is reaching
tipping points beyond which global temperature increases will be irreversible (see
o``gAKF9N
r
' m
v o
ORIu;IvAL
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/climate-thresholds-
id USL6E8EQ4GA20120326?feedTvoe=RSS&feedName=evervthina&virtualBrandChan
net=11563).
In its newest report at http://www.ipcc.ch/rel)ort/srl5/, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) offered its starkest warning yet about the challenges facing
humanity. Not only does the IPCC show that climate change is real and that its impacts
are happening faster than anticipated, but it says that governments need to work
towards a complete phase out of fossil fuel emissions. While previous estimates say
human activity — primarily the burning of fossil fuels - is responsible for more than half of
all warming, the latest report shows we are actually responsible for all warming since
1951. The IPCC makes it clear that emissions need to go to zero if the world is to keep
global warming below the internationally agreed limit of 2DegC. For the best chance of
avoiding severe levels of warming, governments will need to peak emissions, rapidly
phase fossil fuels down to zero and transition to 100 percent renewable energy.
A recent article (htti)://www.atmos-chem-r)hvs-discuss.net/l5/20059/2015/acpd-l5-
20059-2015.htmll concludes that even a 2° C global warming will be "highly dangerous."
Pope Francis recently said that climate change has brought our world to'the limits of
suicide".
These references confirm a significant increase in the severity of the critical
environmental problem, the impact of human activity on climate change, in this case
unmitigated GHG emissions associated with the project.
CEQA requires significance determination to be made by comparing the project's
impact to existing conditions, conditions that, in the case of global climate change, do
not allow the atmosphere to absorb additional greenhouse gasses without risking
catastrophic long-term consequences. Even small GHG emissions should be
considered cumulatively significant.
The California Supreme Court has written, 'the Legislature declared its intention that all
public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime
consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties."
California courts have ruled, "the greater the existing environmental problems are, the
lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts
as significant."
In the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the State has declared, "Global
warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural
resources, and the environment of California." This legislation requires statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
The emission reduction targets set forth in AB 32 mark only a first and interim step
toward avoiding dangerous climate change. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reduction targets extend beyond 2020 and are much larger than the 2020 target;
Executive Order B-30-15 targets a GHG reduction of 40% below 1990 levels by 20303
o``gAKF9N
r m
J C
OR13;lvA1.
codified in SB 32. Executive Order S-3-05 sets an 80% reduction of GHG from 1990
levels in 2050 as a goal. In order to achieve GHG emission reduction goals beyond
2020, the City should require feasible mitigation measures that would reduce GHG
emissions beyond the AB 32 goals.
SB 32 requires that statewide greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 40% below the
1990 level by 2030. The MND is deficient in not having addressed this requirement.
SB 350 sets 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
• Double the energy efficiency of existing building
• 50% of utility power from renewable energy
The MND is deficient in that it does not address SB 350.
What specific project requirements will ensure that this project will be consistent with the
CARIB 10% per capita GHG 2035 reduction target?
The MND is deficient in that it does not contain quantitative data necessary for impact
assessment. How many annual tons of GHG, both direct and indirect, will be
associated with this project? How many vehicle trips and how much VMT (vehicle miles
traveled) will be associated with this project? Upon what assumptions are these
numbers based?
The City must present an analysis of the project's individual and cumulative GHG
emission impact.
The State CEQA Guidelines state,
"15355(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added
to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time."
As best we can tell from the available documentation, there has been no attempt to
quantify the cumulative impact and that there is thus no data upon which to base a
conclusion of insignificance. There are many closely related past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (for example, there are seven
additional housing and commercial projects listed on the February 21, 2019, Planning
Commission agenda, in addition to adjacent tracts 7334 and 6578, and many others),
and the cumulative impact of all these projects on climate change must be quantified
and addressed. The MND is deficient in not having considered the cumulative impact of
a list of area projects on climate change.
Before project approval, the public and decision -makers must be made aware of
specific mitigation measures. Given the seriousness of the global warming issue, the
City should be addressing the issue with specific feasible GHG mitigation measures.
There are a number of potential feasible GHG mitigation measures, measures that
often address criteria pollutant emissions as well, including:
• A requirement that the developer contribute a GHG fee to an appropriate entity
(perhaps the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District or the Rose
Foundation) to be used to fund projects that would reduce GHG emissions
elsewhere. This could be built in to a criteria pollutant VERA as the Air District
has suggested in the past.
• In order to encourage the use of non-polluting electric vehicles (EVs), the City
should require all new housing to include Level 2 EV charging facilities. While
this may be a new Title 24 requirement, including it as a project mitigation
measure would help ensure enforcement.
• Green building measures. Residences should earn at least a GreenPoint Rated
Gold label on the Build It Green "Green Points Checklist' rating scale (see the
website www.builditgreen.org). Measures might include passive solar design
and requiring that buildings be at least 25% more energy efficient than Title 24
standards current when permits are pulled.
• Design features to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Such features might
include adjacent bus stops and/or other public transportation and should include
bicycle -friendly features. The project should commit to increased pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity. Environmental documents should determine the amount of
such transit -oriented building that would make public transportation economically
feasible, and it should determine GHG reductions associated with such transit -
oriented development.
• A requirement that new structures contain solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar
water heating. Title 24 will require solar PV on new residences starting next
year, and the City should require it on all new houses in this project to help
ensure enforcement. Every kilowatt of solar PV power offsets about a ton per
year of global warming gasses that would have otherwise been produced by a
fossil fuel -fired power plant (according to Environment California Research and
Policy Center in a publication entitled The Economics of Solar Homes in
California).
• A transfer fee requirement that would be applied at each sale of a building or
business in the future. Transfer fee monies could go to SJVAPCD or some other
appropriate entity to fund projects that would offset GHG emissions.
• A requirement for partial funding of an area energy efficiency program creating
equivalent reductions in carbon emissions.
• A requirement that the project partially subsidize public transportation in order to
reduce area VMT.
• A condition that parking lots be covered and that parking lot roofs contain solar
PV.
• A requirement that the developer retrofit solar PV on existing area buildings.
Retrofitting existing area buildings with solar PV would effectively offset
emissions associated with this project in much the same way as the SJVAPCD
uses ISR funds to fund offsite projects to offset criteria pollutants associated with
development projects.
o`` gAKFS�
T
' m
J U
OR13;hA1
• A requirement that the developer contribute funding for area solar PV incentives.
Most solar PV incentive programs use funding rebates to encourage PV
construction.
The environmental documents should evaluate these mitigation measures.
FARMLAND LOSS
World population has increased from 6.6 billion people in 2006 when the ND was written
to 7.7 billion people now in 2019. Given the increased need for food production, the
City should reconsider the Project's impact on farmland loss.
The Negative Declaration for 06-0925 admits that the project is to be built on prime
farmland, specifically on Kimberlina fine sandy loam with two water wells on site.
Nevertheless the ND manages to conclude that the effect of converting this prime
agricultural land to residential use is "less than significant." While the City's argument is
creative, the project will clearly convert prime agricultural land to urban use. The 40
acres involved here would probably be of little concern if this were the only project in the
area, but the cumulative effect of the many area projects' agricultural land conversion is
considerable. The California Department of Conservation in its February 7, 2005, letter
on GPA/ZC 04-0057 states, 'When viewed microscopically, the conversion represented
by this project in isolation appears small; yet combined with the rapid pace of
conversion in the County, we find the impact to be cumulatively considerable." A full
EIR should thoroughly discuss this cumulative effect.
The City argues that because the project converts less than 100 acres of prime
farmland, it is less than significant in terms of agricultural impact. The City has used
this reasoning for many other projects; e.g., GPA/ZC 05-0942, GPA/ZC 05-0943,
GPA/ZC 05-0476, GPA/ZC 05-0743, and others, all less than 100 acres in size. In our
opinion, the project -specific and the cumulative impact on farmland loss of this and
these many other smaller projects is considerable and significant. This is also the
opinion of the California Department of Conservation in their November 16, 2005, letter
on the above projects (GPA/ZC 05-0942, etc.) and in their June 3, 2005 letter on
GPS/ZC 05-0338. Among other things, they state, "The Department is not aware of a
100 -acre threshold of significance for agricultural impacts, either by Department
authority or within CEQA statute or regulation. If the City has such a threshold, it should
explain its derivation, rationale, supporting evidence and authorization by the City
Council or administration. Otherwise, the City's apparent use of an unsupported
threshold of significance is contrary to CEQA guidelines." We incorporate the above-
mentioned Department of Conservation letters by reference.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan states that it is policy to "protect areas
designated for agricultural use ... from the encroachment of residential and commercial
subdivision development activities." There are a number of Possible agricultural land
conversion mitigation measures that should be explored for this project. The California
Department of Conservation has stated,'The Department encourages the use of
On:G;NAL
agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality and size as partial
compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land." The feasibility of this sort of
mitigation is well established since a number of projects elsewhere in California have
used agricultural conservation easements as partial mitigation for the conversion of
prime agricultural land to housing. A number of projects in California (including several
in Kern County) have agreed to fund agricultural conservation easements and /or to
establish a local agricultural land conservancy as partial mitigation for such conversion
(e.g., Old River Ranch in SW Bakersfield, Lent Ranch in Elk Grove). We recommend a
per acre agricultural land conversion fee program, and we would suggest contacting the
Sequoia Riverlands Trust as a possible holding agency for such easements. We
suggest as well that the City explore the potential for requiring that a farmland
preservation fee be paid by the seller or buyer to an appropriate entity (California
Department of Conservation, a land trust, etc.) whenever a residence on this property is
sold in the future. This transfer fee would serve as ongoing funding for farmland
preservation projects and would serve as partial mitigation for loss of the prime
agricultural land on this property.
AIR QUALITY
The southern San Joaquin Valley fights it out every year with Los Angeles for having the
worst air pollution in the nation. See the American Lung Association report at
htto://www.lu no.orci/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-
cities.html. Since our extreme air pollution affects the health of many residents, the ND
must thoroughly address the issue.
The California Supreme Court has written, "the Legislature declared its intention that all
public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime
consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties."
California courts have ruled, 'the greater the existing environmental problems are, the
lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts
as significant."
The adverse impact of our terrible air quality on human health is well documented. For
example, there are 13,296 asthma attacks per year in Kern County that can be
attributed to PM10 at current levels (Environmental Working Group, 2001). In spite of
the additional air pollution generated by this and other projects in the area, the ND for
this project erroneously concludes that the project "would not adversely impact human
beings, either directly or indirectly". Other than some standard grading and construction
measures, we find no mitigation measures that deal with construction emissions or with
area source and operational emissions or the cumulative effects of this project. It
should be noted that the General Plan Update EIR, sometimes used to justify the above
assertion, contains no discussion of specific health effects of air pollution and no
references to the medical literature. Since our air is already some of the dirtiest in the
nation and since we have recently gone from "severe" to an "extreme" ozone
nonattainment rating, we suggest that the City acknowledge the public health risk of
increased development and devise strategies to lower the risk.
o�eAKF'd'
r m
u v
OflIG;FAL
We note that the nearby Old River Ranch project proposes development of 1853 acres
into urban use (7000+ dwelling units). Most of these 7000+ houses were not
considered in the cumulative impact study. Cumulative impacts to air quality must be
acknowledged and quantified. Even with the minimized input for the study, cumulative
impacts were acknowledged to be fifteen and eighteen times the SJVAPCD significance
thresholds for NOx and ROG, respectively.
It is Air District policy that if project specific emissions are significant, then cumulative
emissions are significant. While this implication is indisputable, it should be clear that
this implication is not logically equivalent to the inverse implication; i.e., project specific
emissions may be under the significance threshold, yet cumulative emissions may still
be significant. To argue as the MND does that since a project -specific impact is
individually minor, then the cumulative impact is therefore insignificant contradicts the
very meaning of cumulative impacts and turns the concept on its head by claiming that
an impact may not cause a significant cumulative air quality impact unless the project's
direct impact is also significant. For that matter, the SJVAPCD GAMAQI document on
page 66 specifically states, 'This does not imply that if the project is below all such
significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant."
California courts interpreting CEQA, including our own Fifth District, have squarely
rejected this approach. See, e.g., Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221
Cal.App.3d 692, 720-721 (1990) (rejecting the argument that "Whenever an agency
determines impacts specific to a particular project are not significant, corresponding
cumulative impacts cannot be considered significant because the'incremental effects'
of the individual project cannot be 'considerable,' and finding that this claim "avoids
analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when
taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling").
According to CEQA:
A lead agency must find that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment and must therefore require an EIR if the project's potential
environmental impacts, although individually limited, are cumulatively
considerable. Pub Res C § 21083(b); 14 Cal Code Regs § 15065(c).
'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of past projects, other
current projects, and probable future projects. Pub Res C § 21083(b); 14 Cal
Code Regs § 15065(c).
The MND violates CEQA by assuming cumulative air quality insignificance from project -
specific insignificance.
Air pollution associated with the project should be completely mitigated, perhaps by
funding air pollution reduction projects sufficient to completely offset the air pollution
associated with this project. While this project will likely be subject to the SJVAPCD
ISR rule, we note that ISR will not completely offset the air pollution associated with this
project. ISR mitigates only 50% of NOx and PM10 emissions and does not mitigate
ROG emissions at all. The City should determine mitigation measures for the remaining
50% of NOx and PMI 0 emissions and for all the ROG emissions.
o``gAKF9N
T
> r7
u o
OR;:,.fvAl
Several developers (including the West Ming project and the Old River Ranch project in
the City) have agreed to participate in an Emissions Reduction Program through the
SJVAPCD. In order to address the cumulative impact of these projects, developers
promise to completely offset the emissions associated with their project via a VERA.
Many other feasible mitigation measures exist that would help address both criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. See the list above in the GHG section of this
letter for examples of feasible mitigation measures that the ND is deficient in not having
explored.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As best we can tell, there was no biological study for this property. This property may
have been habitat for several endangered species, perhaps San Joaquin kit fox or
blunt -nosed leopard lizards (BNLL).
Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline, and BNLL is not covered by the
Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP. The City must require the developer to preserve an
equal amount of good BNLL habitat elsewhere, perhaps through the Center for Natural
Lands Management.
While many species may have been driven out of the project site by urbanization and
agricultural use, some of the native plant species could be reintroduced by replanting
them in project open space areas. Landscaping should consist of drought -tolerant
and/or native plants.
According to the publication Conservation Strategies for San Joaquin Kit Foxes in
Urban Environments by Brian Cypher, Christine Van Horn Job, and Scott Phillips at
httr):Hesri).csustan.edu/publications/pdf/cypher etal 2012 urban kitfox conservation e
srp.pdf,'To the extent practical and possible, urban planners could design new
developments in a manner that facilitates use by kit foxes." This project should be
designed with urban kit fox conservation measures in mind, perhaps including artificial
kit fox dens and movement corridors as suggested in the above document.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is out of date and expires in six
months. Will this project be subject to the old MBHCP and will this outdated plan be
sufficient to reduce impacts appropriately?
LIGHT POLLUTION
Lighting for the project should be fully shielded so that no lighting escapes upward and
little escapes horizontally to cause glare. The International Dark Sky Association
(www.darksky.org) has guidelines that should be included as conditions of
development. Some of them include the following:
• Exterior lighting originating on a property should be limited to a maximum of 0.5
foot candles at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines.
• All lights should be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there should be no light emitted above
the horizontal and not much light (generally < 4%) at angles greater than 750
above the vertical.
• Streetlights should be flat -lens, full cutoff fixtures installed in a level position and
rated "Dark Sky Friendly" by the International Dark Sky Association. Energy
efficient sodium lamps should be used. They should be mounted at a height of
30 feet or at the lowest height allowed by applicable codes.
• Advertising signs should be illuminated from above and should be off between 11
p.m. and sunrise unless the business is open to the public at that time.
Light pollution leads to air pollution. The atmosphere is lit up at night, which allows
photoreactive ozone formation 24 hours a day and never a time for the pollution to clear
out. See
httD://www. skvandte I escor)e. co m/astronomv-n ews/n is ht -Iia hts-worsen-sm oa/
Light pollution has many adverse effects --wasting energy, increasing greenhouse
emissions, disrupting biological processes, aesthetic damage including disappearance
of the night sky, and increasing air pollution. The MND is deficient in not having
addressed the effects of light pollution on these issues.
Please place the Sierra Club on the distribution list for the Tract 7335 project to receive
any noticing of meetings, hearings, availability of documents, and to receive the
environmental documents. We prefer email communications and electronic formatting
of documents. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.
Vice -Chair
anlDDna bak.rLCOm
661-872-2432
10
o`�gAKF9N
T
� m
J
ORIGINAL
September 15, 2005
Planning Commission
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: GPA/ZC 05-0943
Dear Commissioners
The Sierra Club has a number of comments and questions about the proposed
GPA/ZC 05-0943.
We think that a full-fledged EIR should be done for this project. In the details
below, we give substantial evidence that the Negative Declaration, even with
the added studies, does not adequately address the many issues associated with
this project.
Since the blunt -nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is a "fully protected' species
under California law, no take permit can be granted under the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). There has been no BNLL study
for this project. Given this lack of study, we think that it is likely that this
project may significantly impact this species by harming or killing individual
lizards or otherwise by limiting its range. Possible mitigation could involve
leaving the part of the property as open space dedicated to the BNLL or by
contributing to ongoing efforts to purchase habitat to be preserved for the
BNLL.
The adverse impact of our terrible air quality on human health is well
documented. For example, there are 13,296 asthma attacks per year in Kern
County that can be attributed to PM 10 at current levels (Environmental
Working Group, 2001). Given the additional air pollution generated by this
and other projects in the area, the ND for this project erroneously concludes
that the project "would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or
indirectly". Other than some standard grading and construction measures, we
find no mitigation measures that deal construction emissions or with area
source and operational emissions or the cumulative effects of this project. It
should be noted that the General Plan Update EIR, sometimes used to justify
the above assertion, contains no discussion of specific health effects of air
pollution and no references to the medical literature. Since our air is already
some of the dirtiest in the nation and since we have recently gone from
"severe" to an "extreme" ozone nonattainment rating, we suggest that the City
acknowledge the public health risk of increased development and devise
strategies to lower the risk.
o``0AKF9N
T
r m
J U
ORIGINAL
The developer should be required to plant trees to at least a 40% canopy. Arguments supporting this
requirement are obvious, including visual and air quality enhancement.
Streetlights and signs should be designed to minimize light pollution. The lights at the City ball
diamonds next to Mesa Marin light up the area for miles around, preclude seeing the stars for anyone
within miles, and give us an example of how not to proceed. Nearby tracts 6363, 6290, 6169, and
others in the City have agreed to use shielded lighting so as to keep our skies relatively dark.
Sustainable developments should include mixed uses. There should be opportunities forjobs close to
home. Infill, especially in the downtown area, should be encouraged. So as to efficiently increase
density and decrease sprawl, there should be affordable housing, cluster housing, condominiums, and
apartments. Each development should be required to adhere to these and other "smart growth"
concepts.
Is any low cost housing proposed for this project? In the interest of affordability, we think there
should be.
Will the project be pedestrian friendly? Will sidewalks be required on both sides of the street? Will
there be pedestrian openings in walls so that residents can easily walk to many locations? Will there
be trails and access from this project to trails along the Kem River?
Will there be commercial developments close enough so that residents can walk or bicycle to them?
Are there parks close to the project? Will the new parks required as a result of this project be funded
from the new, higher parks fee?
There has been no biological study done for the project. Nevertheless, the Negative Declaration
asserts that there are no cumulatively considerable impacts. We assert that there are large potential
cumulative impacts to agricultural land conversion, air quality, biological resources, public services,
and to traffic congestion that have not been adequately addressed. Evidence for these assertions
follows.
Agricultural Land Conversion
The Negative Declaration (ND) admits that the project is proposed to be built on prime farmland, and
the project is surrounded by lands being currently farmed, much of which is designated R -IA
(Resource Intensive Agriculture). Nevertheless the ND manages to conclude that the effect of
converting this prime agricultural land to residential use is "less than significant." While the City's
argument is creative, the project will clearly convert prime agricultural land to urban use. The 80
acres involved here would probably be of little concern if this were the only project in the area, but
the cumulative effect of the many area projects' agricultural land conversion is considerable and has
not been examined in this Negative Declaration. The California Department of Conservation in its
February 7, 2005, letter on the nearby GPA/ZC 04-0057 states, "When viewed microscopically, the
conversion represented by this project in isolation appears small; yet combined with the rapid pace of
conversion in the County, we find the impact to be cumulatively considerable." A full EIR should
discuss this cumulative effect.
o`teAKF9N
? m
r m
J
ORI3,hAL
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan states that it is policy to "protect areas designated for
agricultural use ... from the encroachment of residential and commercial subdivision development
activities" There are a number of possible agricultural land conversion mitigation measures that
should be explored for this moiect. The California Department of Conservation has stated, "The
Department encourages the use of agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal
quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land." The feasibility of
this sort of mitigation is well established since a number of projects elsewhere in California have
used agricultural conservation easements as partial mitigation for the conversion of prime agricultural
land to housing. We include a portion of a court-ordered EIR addendum for a project in the City of
Elk Grove with a discussion of agricultural conservation easement requirements and their costs in
other parts of California. In addition, the Department of Conservation has available a listing of 37
'conservation tools' that have been used to conserve or mitigate project impacts on agricultural land.
We include this listing.
Local ordinance requires additional setback and lot area to buffer between agricultural and residential
uses. We see no such setbacks on the maps. What specifically does the ordinance require? Will a
buffer be required? We suggest that the buffer be required of the new development rather than of the
existing adjacent farmland.
Air Quality Impacts
The City violated CEQA by using a list of projects to estimate cumulative air quality impacts.
The "list" method was over -ruled in CBE v. California Resource Agency, 103 Ca1.App. 4"
98, 122 (2002), pursuant to which a lead agency may not limit its analysis of cumulative
impact to a list of projects that are likely to be implemented in the project's vicinity. The City
was required to access the project's potential cumulative impact based on all categories of
documents listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b)(1)(B)2.
Regarding the cumulative impacts of this and other potential projects in the area, we note that
the ND for this project states, "The Air Quality Analysis concludes cumulative impacts to be
less than significant since there are no individual significant adverse air quality related
effects". They seem to be saying that if project specific impacts do not meet the significance
threshold, then there is no cumulative impact. This contradicts the very meaning of
cumulative impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines state,
"15355(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to
other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taking place over a period of time."
We note that the nearby Old River Ranch project proposes development of 1853 acres into
urban use (7000+ dwelling units). These 7000+ houses were not considered in the cumulative
impact study. The ND for the nearby GPA/ZC 05-0942 lists an additional 6432 housing units
proposed to be built in the vicinity, most of which were also not considered. Cumulative
impacts to air quality must be acknowledged and quantified. Even with the minimum input
for the study, cumulative impacts were acknowledged to be five times the SJVAPCD
significance thresholds for NOx and ROG.
The ND is deficient in its discussion of cumulative air quality impacts. To get some idea of
the extent of this cumulative impact, we refer to a DEIR done for a project in Northeast QkgAKic9N
T
� m
J J
OR;u.tvAL
Bakersfield. Since growth in SW Bakersfield is occurring at approximately the same rate as
in NE Bakersfield, results of the computations should be similar. Specifically, we compute
ROG and NOx emissions from the residential projects listed in Appendix I of the Tract 6352
DEIR. We assume that all these projects adopt mitigation measures that would reduce project
emissions to 10 tons/year each of ROG and NOx so as not to exceed the SJVAPCD
significance threshold. Using the results of the Air Study in the Tract 6352 DEB2, each house
in this project will be responsible for emitting approximately .025 tons/year of each of ROG
and NOx through area source and operational emissions. A similar project of 400 houses
would thus emit 10 tons/year of each of ROG and NOx. We assume that projects of less than
400 houses would not be subject to such mitigation measures since they would not exceed the
SJVAPCD significance threshold. In those projects larger than 400 houses, mitigation would
only apply to houses in excess of 400; hence these larger projects would still emit 10
tons/year each of NOx and ROG. Then there would still be 7252 houses listed in Appendix I
that would not be accounted for through these mitigation measures. These unmitigated 7252
houses would emit approximately 180 tons/year of each of ROG and NOx. In our opinion,
this long-term conservative estimate of 180 tons/year of each of ROG and NOx emissions is a
significant cumulative impact applicable to SW Bakersfield. (There are at least twice as many
housing units in the pipeline for SW Bakersfield; the numbers should at least be doubled.)
This impact should be mitigated, can be mitigated, and is not.
Effective mitigation measures are available. One possibility is for the developers to pay an air
quality mitigation fee that would be used to fund air pollution reduction projects that would
offset the pollution associated with these developments. We note that the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR suggests such a fee as potential mitigation. The
SJVAPCD has also suggested adoption of an Air Quality Mitigation Fee (GAMAQI, pages 57
and 58) as potential mitigation for air quality impacts. In addition, a number of developers
(e.g., Tracts 6137, 6191, 6234, 6148, 6149, and 6351) in the City of Bakersfield in private
settlements have agreed to a $1200 per house Air Quality Mitigation Fee to be used to fund
pollution reduction projects. Given appropriate planning and appropriate nexus, the proposed
fee could very well he feasible and could very well meet the statutory requirements for a
mitigation measure in the same way that the Transportation Impact Fee meets such
requirements. A second possible mitigation measure would incorporate as a condition of
development a requirement that the developer directly fund pollution reduction projects that
would completely offset the pollution associated with the projects (so as to mitigate
cumulative impacts). There are a number of other possible mitigation measures. For
example, the SJVAPCD, in its letter for this project, lists a number of site design measures
(photovoltaic cells, bikeways, passive solar design, bus turnouts, energy efficiency, catalyst
equipped diesel construction equipment, Tier II engines, Air Quality Mitigation Agreements,
etc.) that would reduce air quality impacts and which should be explored in an FIR and
required as conditions of development for this project. "Smart growth" policies such as
planning for walkable communities, mixed use, and transit-oriented development should also
be explored. In addition, several developers have recently agreed to participate in an
Emissions Reduction Program through the SJVAPCD. Through this program, developers
promise to completely offset the emissions associated with their project. If the details reflect
this promise, if the developers carry through, and if citizens are given adequate opportunity
for input, we will see this program as real progress in helping to clean our air.
Post-Regulation VIII construction-related emissions have not been added into the total project
emissions. The developer's consultant will argue that construction emissions are temporary
and should therefore be ignored. We would counter that construction is ongoing and
o``8AKF9N
� m
u L
OR;3,tvA
unceasing with approximately 4000 or more houses per year being built in the Metropolitan
Bakersfield area, that post -Regulation VIII construction emissions are very real and very
significant contributors to our severe air pollution problem, and that we should be facing up to
them rather than habitually ignoring them.
Environmental impacts must be mitigated when feasible measures are available; just because
effective mitigations used elsewhere are not specified or discussed in the GAMAQI doesn't
mean the lead agency can ignore them, and cost alone is not sufficient to deny full,
substantive evaluation of available mitigations. Onroad and offroad emission control
aftertreatments are available for NOx and PMIO reductions to reduce impacts of construction
diesels and of diesels that will work at or travel to/from the development once it is completed.
There should be a comprehensive listing and review of mitigations that are not "facially
infeasible", and the discussion should not be limited to mitigations that are directly or
implicitly conditioned within the GAMAQI. The Sacramento air basin has essentially the
same development -related vehicle fleets and vehicle operation parameters as those in
Bakersfield. A scraper used to grade the development studied here is essentially the same
type, horsepower, vintage, and emission level as used to grade a project in Sacramento, and
grading practices in valley soils are similar from north to south. Sacramento's requirement
for 20% NOx reduction and 45% PMIO reduction, based on a fleet average emission level for
each type of construction equipment is feasible and reasonable based on 3 years of experience
there. Bakersfield should adopt a similar requirement.
With respect to construction related PMIO emissions, GAMAQI states, -PM- 10 may have
cumulative local impacts, if for example, several unrelated grading or earth moving projects
are underway simultaneously at nearby sites." (p. 53). Given that a large number of area
projects are currently in the pipeline, it is likely that some of them will be built
simultaneously. Cumulative impact studies of construction related emissions of PMIO should
he included. Clearly, cumulative air quality impacts are significant, and an EIR should be
prepared for this project.
A number of dairies are proposed for the area new this project or are already in operation
within several miles of this project. What effect will these dairies have on future residents' air
quality?
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR did not sufficiently address the cumulative
impacts to air qualityfrom projects in this area. This EIR contains little specific information and no
quantitative analysis of the impacts to Southwest Bakersfield. There are several references in the
General Plan Update EIR to potential mitigation measures that as of this date have not been
implemented. Please note our comments on this issue that were presented earlier to the Planning
Commission and which are already in the record of Tract 6137.
Biological Resources
The fact that the property lies within the MBHCP area does not relieve the City of the need to assess
the impact of the project on biological resources. No such study has been done. Pursuant to CEQA,
the lead agency, in this case the City, may not limit its analysis of the project's potential impact on
species that are listed pursuant to the federal and state law; the City has a separate and ongoing
responsibility under CEQA also to consider the project's potential impacts on species which, although
o,�OpKF �
s
OR;G,NAL
not listed as threatened or endangered, may nevertheless require additional protection by virtue of
being rare or otherwise in danger of extinction in the region (CEQA Guideline 15380). The
burrowing owl fits this description.
The ND's analysis of the project's potential impact on wildlife movement corridors is non-existent.
The ND's contention that the project will have no significant impact on wildlife movement corridors
is based on the fact that the project lies within the boundaries of the MBHCP but not within the Kern
River corridor. It is clear that the authors have not conducted any independent investigation of the
project site to determine whether the site is used for movement of native species. As such, their
contention is not supported by substantial evidence.
Traffic Impact Study
While the traffic generated by this proposed project would probably be easily absorbed into existing
streets if this were the only project in the area, we are aware of thousands of new residences proposed
for the immediate vicinity. We note that the adjacent Old River Ranch project proposes development
of 1853 acres into urban use (7000+ dwelling units) and the ND for the nearby GPA/ZC 05-0942 lists
an additional 6432 housing units proposed to be built in the vicinity. The cumulative impact of this
growth could be severe. The Negative Declaration contains no discussion of these traffic -related
issues.
Given the existing traffic congestion in the Southwest, we suggest that the cumulative impact of this
project on traffic could easily be considerable. Will the transportation impact fee that will be
imposed on this project generate enough funding to mitigate the approximately 2400 vehicle trips per
day by the 253 new residences? What evidence is there that the fee is large enough to cover the cost
of improvements necessary to deal with the cumulative impact to traffic? Clearly, collecting the
Traffic Impact Fee will not, in and of itself, alleviate the existing and future traffic congestion in the
Southwest. How will the projects funded with the fees from this development mitigate the additional
traffic congestion potential associated with the project? How will the projects funded with the fees
from this development alleviate the existing traffic congestion in the Southwest?
Improved public transportation could help solve our air quality and traffic congestion problems. Will
there be regular bus service to the project? Are bus pullouts designed into the project? Will there be
a park and ride facility? Are new highways being designed to allow for future light rail? We think
that the project should incorporate all these design features.
The DPEIR for the adjacent Old River Ranch project predicts that a number of intersections and
roadway segments will operate below LOS C in 2030 even with full expansion per current standards.
On page 150 of the Traffic Study for the Rosedale Ranch project, it is determined that ten
intersections and five roadways in Northwest Bakersfield will operate below LOS C in 2030 even
with full improvements. This is in conflict with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP),
and it threatens to significantly degrade the quality of life in our community. In our opinion, this is
not acceptable. Either (1) measures that would address and solve the problem should be studied and
implemented, or, if the public is expected to accept this degradation, (2) the General Plan Circulation
Element should be updated to reflect these lowered expectations. It is vital that the public be aware,
involved, and accepting of this major impact of development. An EIR should make
recommendations toward this goal.
OR;,' NAl
Public Services and Utilities
The ND omits consideration of requiring solar photovoltaic panels on the residences to generate
electricity from the abundant Bakersfield sunlight. In addition to air quality and other societal
benefits, solar photovoltaic panels on the residences could generate enough electricity to help
mitigate the stated need to build upgraded electrical facilities. New houses should be situated and
designed to accommodate photovoltaic panels (and designed to maximize energy efficiency). The
NO should discuss global climate change resulting from CO2 emissions. The use of solar
photovoltaic panels can offset CO2 emissions from electrical power plants. Many other projects in
Bakersfield have agreed to at least offer photovoltaics to the buyer as an option (e.g., Tracts 6137,
6234, 6197, 6252, several Castle & Cook projects). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD) in its letter on other projects has recommended installation of photovoltaic cells.
An EIR should discuss this possibility.
The NO contains no analysis of the fiscal impact of the project on our community. The DEIR for the
Rosedale Ranch project computes that the cost to schools of that project will be $3.73 per square foot
of single-family residential development, and we suspect that a similar number holds for this project.
The developer is only required to pay $2.24 per square foot of such development. How will the
additional $1.49 be financed? The fiscal impact of the project on schools and other public necessities
could have a significant bearing on public and decision -maker judgments and should be included in
an EIR. The fiscal analysis for an EIR should incorporate analysis of the statistics relating to
workdays lost and deaths per year due to air pollution.
Although the Urban Water Management Plan is currently being updated, we note that the existing
plan may not cover the project area. Given the other projects in the area (many of them very large),
what will be the cumulative impact of all this growth on water supply? Without an Urban Water
Management Plan, we feel that this cumulative impact is not being addressed.
In its letter of May 19, 2005, on the Rosedale Ranch project, the Kern County Waste Management
District listed this project as one of a number of large projects that contribute to the cumulative
impact of growth on the Shafter Wasco Sanitary Landfill. They state that the Rosedale Ranch project
"should be rated as cumulatively significant for solid waste impacts' Clearly, the cumulative impact
of this project on waste management is also significant. An EIR should explore this issue and should
list methods of mitigating this impact.
The ND does not discuss the impact of requiring one or more on-site residential recycling facilities
within the project. Such a requirement would help reduce the waste stream from this large project.
This impact should be discussed in an EIR.
If the project is approved, the City should explain it's reasoning in a project -specific Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Although CEQA allows lead agencies to "tier" to other environmental
documents where appropriate, it also requires lead agencies to make a statement of overriding
consideration specifically tied to the project whenever a project will have significant unavoidable
impacts. Communities for Better Environment v California Resource Aaencv ("CBE") 103 Cal.
App. 4'^ 98, 124 (2002). This requirement is explicitly stated in PRC §21081, which mandates that
whenever a lead agency approves a project with significant environmental impacts that are
o�eAKF9u'
T
m
u
ORiG,tvAL
unavoidable or immitigable, it must find that "specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of the project outweigh ... the effect ... "Id., at subsection (b), cited
in CBE, supra (emphasis in original).
Conclusions:
The Negative Declaration for GPA/ZC 05-0943asserts that there are "no impacts that would be
defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable." In the past, planners have asserted
that the General Plan Update EIR contains all the information that you as decision -makers and that
the public as residents need to know. Given the information above about this project and the large
projects in the vicinity either approved or in the approval process, clearly cumulative impacts to
farmland loss, air quality, biological resources, public services and utilities, and traffic are significant.
The General Plan Update EIR is sadly lacking in quantifying cumulative air quality impacts and in
drawing conclusions from what little data it contains. It is a vital concern that these cumulative
impacts will further deerade the community's abysmal air quality, already some of the worst in the
nation and out of compliance with federal and state laws. Additionally, the cumulative effects of new
We ask that you require that a full EIR he done for this project.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp
okgAKF9�
T
r
J J
OF63AAL
February 6, 2007
City Council
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: GPA/ZC 06-0925
Dear Council Members
The Siena Club has a number of comments and questions about the proposed
GPA/ZC 06-0925.
We think that a full-fledged EIR should be done for this project. In the
details below, we give substantial evidence that the Negative Declaration
(ND), even with the added studies, does not adequately address the many
issues associated with this project.
Agricultural Land Conversion
The Negative Declaration (ND) admits that the project is to be built on prime
farmland, specifically on 60 acres of Kimberlina fine sandy loam with two
water wells on site. Nevertheless the ND manages to conclude that the effect
of converting this prime agricultural land to residential use is "less than
significant." While the City's argument is creative, the project will clearly
convert prime agricultural land to urban use. The 60 acres involved here
would probably be of little concern if this were the only project in the area,
but the cumulative effect of the many area projects' agricultural land
conversion is considerable. The California Department of Conservation in its
February 7, 2005, letter on GPA/ZC 04-0057 states, "When viewed
microscopically, the conversion represented by this project in isolation
appears small; yet combined with the rapid pace of conversion in the County,
we find the impact to be cumulatively considerable." A full EIR should
thoroughly discuss this cumulative effect.
The City argues that because the project converts less than 100 acres of prime
farmland, it is less than significant in terms of agricultural impact. The City
has used this reasoning for many other projects; e.g., GPA/ZC 05-0942,
GPA/ZC 05-0943, GPA/ZC 05-0476, GPA/ZC 05-0743, and others, all less
than 100 acres in size. In our opinion, the project -specific and the cumulative
impact on farmland loss of this and these many other smaller projects is
considerable and significant. This is also the opinion of the California
Department of Conservation in their November 16, 2005, letter on the above
projects (GPA/ZC 05-0942, etc.) and in their lune 3, 2005 letter on GPS/ZC
05-0338. Among other things, they state, "The Department is not aware of a
100 -acre threshold of significance for agricultural impacts, either by
Department authority or within CEQA statute or regulation. If the City has
such a threshold, it should explain its derivation, rationale, supporting
okgAKF9N
r m
J J
evidence and authorization by the City Council or administration. Otherwise, the City's apparent use
of an unsupported threshold of significance is contrary to CEQA guidelines." We incorporate the
above-mentioned Department of Conservation letters by reference.
The EIR should discuss the need for this project? Agricultural Conservation Policy No. 14 of the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires, among other things, evaluation of "demonstrated
project need" when converting agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. To this end, the Negative
Declaration for this project states that this project will provide "housing to accommodate the projected
population growth in the MBGP area" and that this project is a `logical expansion of residential
development." How do these general statements provide evidence that there is a need for this project?
Substantial evidence for the need for this project should provide statistics that would answer the
following questions: What is the projected population growth in the MBGP area? How much of this
projection has already been met by housing constructed since the projection was made? How many
other housing projects in Metropolitan Bakersfield have already been approved but have not yet been
built? How many are in the pipeline? How many projected housing units are in these approved or
anticipated but as yet unbuilt projects? In the past several years, the Metropolitan Bakersfield area has
experienced rapid growth. Where are the new citizens coming from? Where are they working?
Housing sales seem to have leveled off at this writing. Why would we expect there to be a need for the
additional 218 housing units in this project?
In attempting to demonstrate the need for the nearby 92-acre GPA/ZC 06-1014 project, the Negative
Declaration for that project notes that the MBGP anticipates 37,000 housing units will be needed in the
next 15 years. How many housing units have been approved already since the MBGP was approved?
If the number of already approved units in the Metro area is close to 37000 or greater than 37000, we
would suggest that there would be very little need for either GPA/ZC 06-1014 or GPA/ZC 06-0925.
The same GPA/ZC 06-1014 Negative Declaration notes that 13,000 housing units are needed in the
SW center area. We remark that the nearby Old River Ranch project is planning to build 7000+ units,
that the Ashe Annexation project will build 2300+ units, that the West Ming project will build 7000+
units, and that there are already many other SW projects on the books. Even these numbers add up to
more than 13,000. If these numbers are accurate, how can there still be need for GPA/ZC 06-09259
In addition, the Kern County Housing element identifies a need for 3685 housing units in the southern
San Joaquin Valley. We remark that the adjacent Old River Ranch project is planning to build 7000+
units, almost twice as many as the ND says is identified in the Kern County Housing Element, and this
does not even consider the many other area projects. The need for this project has not been
demonstrated.
The Agricultural Conversion Study for the 92-acre GPA/ZC 06-1014 states, "The project represents
the conversion of 6.3% of Agricultural Lands found in the MBGP area." Assuming that these statistics
are correct, the 60-acre project at hand would then convert approximately 4% of farmlands in the
MBGP area. How does it follow that converting one of every twenty-five acres of farmland is not
significant? There is no substantial evidence for this conclusion.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan states that it is policy to "protect areas designated for
agricultural use ... from the encroachment of residential and commercial subdivision development
activities." There are a number of possible agricultural land conversion mitigation measures that
should be explored for this project. The California Department of Conservation has stated, "The
Department encourages the use of agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality
and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land." The feasibility of this sort of
okgAKF9�
T
� m
J J
oR;a,nnt
mitigation is well established since a number of projects elsewhere in California have used agricultural
conservation easements as partial mitigation for the conversion of prime agricultural land to housing.
We incorporate by reference a portion of a court-ordered EIR addendum for a project in the City of
Elk Grove with a discussion of agricultural conservation easement requirements and their costs in
other parts of California, included in our September 15, 2005, comments on GPA/ZC 05-0476. In
addition, the Department of Conservation has available a listing of 37 `conservation tools' that have
been used to conserve or mitigate project impacts on agricultural land. We included this listing in our
comments on GPAIZC 05-0476, and we incorporate them here by reference. We remark that Sequoia
Riverlands Trust is expanding into Kern County and will soon be able to serve as a holding agency for
farmland conservation easements. The California Department of Conservation has indicated
willingness in the past to act as an intermediary for farmland conservation easements. A number of
projects in California (including several in Kem County) have agreed to fund agricultural conservation
easements and /or to establish a local agricultural land conservancy as partial mitigation for such
conversion (e.g., Old River Ranch in SW Bakersfield, Lent Ranch in Elk Grove). We recommend a
per acre agricultural land conversion fee program, and we would suggest contacting the Sequoia
Riverlands Trust as a possible holding agency for such easements. We suggest as well that the EIR
explore the potential for requiring that a farmland preservation fee be paid by the seller or buyer to an
appropriate entity (California Department of Conservation, a land trust, etc.) whenever a residence on
this property is sold in the future. This transfer fee would serve as ongoing funding for farmland
preservation projects and would serve as partial mitigation for loss of the prime agricultural land on
this property.
Although CEQA allows lead agencies to "tier" to other environmental documents where appropriate, it
also requires the agency to prepare a subsequent EIR when there is such "new information of
substantial importance." We have presented substantial evidence that there are now feasible
mitigation measures that considerably reduce the impacts of farmland conversion that were previously
dismissed as infeasible. The City should prepare a project -specific EIR.
Air Quality Impacts
We note that the nearby Old River Ranch project proposes development of 1853 acres into
urban use (7000+ dwelling units). Most of these 7000+ houses were not considered in the
cumulative impact study. Cumulative impacts to air quality must be acknowledged and
quantified. Even with the minimized input for the study, cumulative impacts were
acknowledged to be fifteen and eighteen times the SJVAPCD significance thresholds for NOx
and ROG, respectively.
Air pollution associated with the project should be completely mitigated, perhaps by funding
air pollution reduction projects sufficient to completely offset the air pollution associated with
this project. While this project will likely be subject to the ISR rule, newly adopted by the
SJVAPCD, we note that ISR will not completely offset the air pollution associated with this
project. The Building Industry Association recently filed suit against the ISR rule. In the
situation that the ISR mle is overturned or weakened, we would suggest that the City and the
developer nevertheless commit to completely mitigating the air pollution associated with the
project. In any case, ISR mitigates only 50% of NOx and PM10 emissions and does not
mitigate ROG emissions at all. The EIR should determine mitigation measures for the
remaining 50% of NOx and PM 10 emissions and for all the ROG emissions. We note that the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR suggests a fee be used to fund air pollution
reduction projects as potential mitigation. The SJVAPCD has also suggested adoption of an
o�gAKF9u,
T
r
J J
Ort u.NAL
Air Quality Mitigation Fee (GAMAQI, pages 57 and 58) as potential mitigation for air quality
impacts. In addition, a number of developers (e.g., Tracts 6137, 6191, 6234, 6148, 6149, and
6351) in the City of Bakersfield and several in Kern County in private settlements have agreed
to a $1200 per house Air Quality Mitigation Fee to be used to fund pollution reduction projects.
Given appropriate planning and appropriate nexus, a fee used to fund pollution reduction
projects could very well be feasible and could very well meet the statutory requirements for a
mitigation measure in the same way that the Transportation Impact Fee meets such
requirements. A second possible mitigation measure would incorporate as a condition of
development a requirement that the developer directly fund pollution reduction projects that
would completely offset the pollution associated with the projects (so as to mitigate cumulative
impacts). There are a number of other possible mitigation measures. For example, the
SJVAPCD, in letters on other projects (e.g., the letter of March 1, 2005, included in the City's
GPA/ZC 05-0403 Negative Declaration), lists a number of onsite design measures
(photovoltaic cells, bikeways, passive solar design, bus turnouts, energy efficiency, etc.) that
would reduce air quality impacts and which should be explored in the EIR for this project.
"Smart growth" policies such as planning for walkable communities, mixed use, and transit-
oriented development should also be explored, and the concomitant pollution reduction should
be quantified. In addition, several developers (including the West Ming project and the Old
River Ranch project in the City) have recently agreed to participate in an Emissions Reduction
Program through the SJVAPCD. Through this program, developers promise to completely
offset the emissions associated with their project. If the details reflect this promise, if the
developers carry through, and if citizens are given adequate opportunity for input, we will see
this program as real progress in helping to clean our air.
The Kern COG conformity analysis was based on the existing zoning designation data for the
project site. Since this project would require a change in zoning, the underlying assumptions
for the conformity analysis applicable to the project site will be changed. The current Kern
COG conformity analysis for the project site will not be applicable and should not be used to
underwrite the cumulative impact of this project.
Environmental impacts must be mitigated when feasible measures are available; just because
effective mitigations used elsewhere me not specified or discussed in the GAMAQI doesn't
mean the lead agency can ignore them, and cost alone is not sufficient to deny full, substantive
evaluation of available mitigations. Onroad and offroad emission control aftertreatments are
available for NOx and PM 1O reductions to reduce impacts of construction diesels and of diesels
that will work at or travel to/from the development once it is completed. There should be a
comprehensive listing and review of mitigations that are not facially infeasible, and the
discussion should not be limited to mitigations that are directly or implicitly conditioned within
the GAMAQL The Sacramento air basin has essentially the same development-related vehicle
fleets and vehicle operation parameters as those in Bakersfield. A scraper used to grade the
development studied here is essentially the same type, horsepower, vintage, and emission level
as used to grade a project in Sacramento, and grading practices in valley soils are similar from
north to south. Sacramento's requirement for 20% NOx reduction and 45% PM IO reduction,
based on a fleet average emission level for each type of construction equipment is feasible and
reasonable based on 4 years of experience there. Bakersfield should adopt a similar
requirement.
With respect to construction related PM10 emissions, GAMAQI states, "PM-10 may have
cumulative local impacts, if for example, several unrelated grading or earth moving projects are
underway simultaneously at nearby sites." (p. 53). Given that a large number of area projects
are currently in the pipeline, it is likely that some of them will be built simultaneously.
Cumulative impact studies of construction related emissions of PMIO should be included. oFBANF91P
m
r m
J J
ORL;,hAL
Clearly, cumulative air quality impacts are significant, and an EIR should be prepared for this
project.
The adverse impact of our terrible air quality on human health is well documented. For example, there
are 13,296 asthma attacks per year in Kern County that can be attributed to PM10 at current levels
(Environmental Working Group, 2001). In spite of the additional air pollution generated by this and
other projects in the area, the ND for this project erroneously concludes that the project "would not
adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly". Other than some standard grading and
construction measures, we find no mitigation measures that deal with construction emissions or with
area source and operational emissions or the cumulative effects of this project. It should be noted that
the General Plan Update EIR, sometimes used to justify the above assertion, contains no discussion of
specific health effects of air pollution and no references to the medical literature. Since our air is
already some of the dirtiest in the nation and since we have recently gone from "severe" to an
"extreme" ozone nonattainment rating, we suggest that the City acknowledge the public health risk of
increased development and devise strategies to lower the risk.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update EIR did not sufficiently address the cumulative
impacts to air qualityfrom projects in this area. This EBR contains little specific information and no
quantitative analysis of the impacts to Southwest Bakersfield. There are several references in the
General Plan Update EIR to potential mitigation measures that as of this date have not been
implemented.
Light Pollution
Lighting for the project itself should be fully shielded so that no lighting escapes upward and little
escapes horizontally to cause glare. The International Dark Sky Association (www,darksky.ora) has
guidelines that would be useful as conditions of development. Some of them include the following:
All lights should be full cutoff fixtures; i.e., there should be no light emitted above the
horizontal and not much light (generally <4%) at angles greater than 75° above the vertical.
Streetliehts should be flat -lens, full cutoff, cobrahead fixtures installed in a level position and
rated as "Dark -Sky Friendly" by the International Dark Sky Association. Energy efficient
sodium lamps should be used. They should be mounted at a height of 30 feet or at the lowest
height allowed by applicable codes.
Exterior lighting originating on a property should be limited to a maximum of 0.5 foot candles
at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines.
Advertising signs should be illuminating from above and should be off between 11 p.m. and
sunrise unless the business is open to the public at that time.
Biological Resources
The fact that the property lies within the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP) area does not relieve the City of the need to assess the impact of the project on biological
resources. No such study has been done. Pursuant to CEQA, the lead agency, in this case the City,
may not limit its analysis of the project's potential impact on species that are listed pursuant to the
federal and state law; the City has a separate and ongoing responsibility under CEQA also to consideroF�AKF9sm
JONGAAL
the project's potential impacts on species which, although not listed as threatened or endangered, may
nevertheless require additional protection by virtue of being rare or otherwise in danger of extinction in
the region (CEQA Guideline 15380). The burrowing owl fits this description.
The ND's analysis of the project's potential impact on wildlife movement corridors is non-existent.
The ND's contention that the project will have no significant impact on wildlife movement corridors is
based on the fact that the project lies within the boundaries of the MBHCP but not within the Kern
River corridor. It is clear that the authors have not conducted any independent investigation of the
project site to determine whether the site is used for movement of native species. As such, their
contention is not supported by substantial evidence.
Since the blunt -nosed leopard lizard (BNLL) is a "fully protected" species under California law, no
take permit can be granted under the MBHCP. There has been no BNLL study for this project. Given
this lack of study, we think that it is likely that this project may significantly impact this species by
harming or killing individual lizards or otherwise by limiting its range. Possible mitigation could
involve leaving the part of the property as open space dedicated to the BNLL or by contributing to
ongoing efforts to purchase habitat to be preserved for the BNLL.
Traffic Impact Study
Given the existing traffic congestion in the Southwest, we suggest that the cumulative impact of this
project on traffic could easily be considerable. Will the transportation impact fee that will be imposed
on this project generate enough funding to mitigate the approximately 2000 vehicle trips per day by the
218 new residences? What evidence is there that the fee is large enough to cover the cost of
improvements necessary to deal with the cumulative impact to traffic? Clearly, collecting the Traffic
Impact Fee will not, in and of itself, alleviate the existing and future traffic congestion in the
Southwest. How will the projects funded with the fees from this development mitigate the additional
traffic congestion potential associated with the project? How will the projects funded with the fees
from this development alleviate the existing and anticipated traffic congestion in the Southwest?
Improved public transportation could help solve our air quality and traffic congestion problems. Will
there be regular bus service to the project? Are bus pullouts designed into the project? Will there be a
park and ride facility? Are new highways being designed to allow for future light rail? We think that
the project should incorporate all these design features.
The DPEIR for the nearby Old River Ranch project predicts that a number of intersections and
roadway segments will operate below LOS C in 2030 even with full expansion per current standards.
On page 150 of the Traffic Study for the Rosedale Ranch project, it is determined that ten intersections
and five roadways in Northwest Bakersfield will operate below LOS C in 2030 even with full
improvements. This is in conflict with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP), and it
threatens to significantly degrade the quality of life in our community. In our opinion, this is not
acceptable. Either (1) measures that would address and solve the problem should be studied and
implemented, or, if the public is expected to accept this degradation, (2) the General Plan Circulation
Element should be updated to reflect these lowered expectations. It is vital that the public be aware,
involved, and accepting of this major impact of development. An EIR for this project should study
cumulative impacts and should make recommendations toward this goal.
Public Services and Utilities
o` i6AKF9N
T
� m
J U
ORGAAl
The ND omits consideration of requiring solar photovoltaic panels on the residences to generate
electricity from the abundant Bakersfield sunlight. In addition to air quality and other societal benefits,
solar photovoltaic panels on the residences could generate enough electricity to help mitigate the
possible need to build upgraded electrical facilities. New houses should be situated and designed to
accommodate photovoltaic panels (and designed to maximize energy efficiency). The ND should
discuss global climate change resulting from CO2 emissions. The use of solar photovoltaic panels can
offset CO2 emissions from electrical power plants. Many other projects in Bakersfield have agreed to
at least offer photovoltaics to the buyer as an option (e.g., Tracts 6137, 6234, 6197, 6252, several
Castle & Cook projects). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in its
letter on other projects has recommended installation of photovoltaic cells. An EIR should discuss this
possibility.
The ND contains no analysis of the fiscal impact of the project on our community. The DEIR for the
Rosedale Ranch project computes that the cost to schools of that project will be $3.73 per square foot
of single-family residential development, and we suspect that a similar number holds for this project.
How large are the school fees for this project? The fiscal impact of the project on schools and other
public necessities could have a significant bearing on public and decision -maker judgments and should
be included in an EIR. The fiscal analysis for an EIR should incorporate analysis of the statistics
relating to workdays lost and deaths per year due to air pollution.
Has the Urban Water Management Plan for the area been updated? Does the existing plan cover the
project area? Given the other projects in the area (many of them very large), what will be the
cumulative impact of all this growth on water supply?
In its letter of May 19, 2005, on the Rosedale Ranch project, the Kern County Waste Management
District listed this project as one of a number of large projects that contribute to the cumulative impact
of growth on the Shatter Wasco Sanitary Landfill. They state that the Rosedale Ranch project "should
be rated as cumulatively significant for solid waste impacts" Clearly, the cumulative impact of this
project on waste management is also significant. An EIR should explore this issue and should list
methods of mitigating this impact.
The ND does not discuss the impact of requiring one or more on-site residential recycling facilities
within the project. Such a requirement would help reduce the waste stream from this large project.
This impact should be discussed in an EIR.
Smart Growth
Sustainable developments should include mixed uses. There should be opportunities for jobs close to
home. Infill, especially in the downtown area, should be encouraged. So as to efficiently increase
density and decrease sprawl, there should be affordable housing, cluster housing, condominiums, and
apartments. Each development should be required to adhere to these and other "smart growth"
concepts.
Is any low cost or higher density housing proposed for this project? In the interest of affordability, we
think there should be.
Will the project be pedestrian friendly? Will sidewalks he required on both sides of the street? Will
there be pedestrian openings in walls so that residents can easily walk to many locations? Will there
be trails and access from this project to trails along the Kern River9 o`r�AKe9m
a '
J J
Orai,ihAL
Will there be commercial developments close enough so that residents can walk or bicycle to them?
Are there parks close to the project? Will the new parks required as a result of this project be funded
from the new, higher parks fee?
Conclusions
In our opinion, there are unmitigated significant project -specific and cumulative impacts of this
project. If the project is approved with significant unmitigated or unavoidable impacts, the City should
explain it's reasoning in a project -specific Statement of Overriding Considerations. Although CEQA
allows lead agencies to `tier" to other environmental documents where appropriate, it also requires
lead agencies to make a statement of overriding consideration specifically tied to the project whenever
a project will have significant unavoidable impacts [Communities for Better Environment v California
Resource Aeencv ("CBE") 103 Cal. App. 4'h 98, 124 (2002)(. This requirement is explicitly stated in
PRC §21081, which mandates that whenever a lead agency approves a project with significant
environmental impacts that are unavoidable or immitigable, it must find that "specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh ... the effect ... "Id.,
at subsection (b), cited in CBE supra (emphasis in original).
The Negative Declaration for GPA/ZC 06-0925 asserts that there are "no impacts that would be
defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable." In the past, planners have asserted that
the General Plan Update EBR contains all the information that you as decision -makers and that the
public as residents need to know. Given the information above about this project and the large projects
in the vicinity either approved or in the approval process, clearly cumulative impacts to farmland loss,
air quality, biological resources, public services and utilities, and traffic are significant. The General
Plan Update EIR is sadly lacking in quantifying cumulative air quality impacts and in drawing
conclusions from what little data it contains. It is a vital concern that these cumulative impacts will
further degrade the community's abysmal air quality, already some of the worst in the nation and out
of compliance with federal and state laws. Additionally, the cumulative effects of new developments
on traffic, agricultural land preservation, public services, and biological resources need to be
acknowledged and addressed. We ask that you require that a full EIR be done for this project.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp
o�eAKF9.m
s
� m
uOR 3,NAL
EXHIBIT D-2 9; •
�
B A K E R S F I E L D
Development Services Department
Jacquelyn R. Kitchen, Development Services Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21, 2019
TO: Chairman Cater and Planning Commission
FROM: Kevin F. Coyle, AICP CEP, Planning Director K F(i
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 6.a. 5-.-g.-Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7335
Response to Sierra Club Letter Dated 2/21/19
The attached letter from Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, was received by staff on
February 21, 2019. The letter comments on several environmental impacts the Sierra Club is of
the opinion that need further analysis. Staff provides the following responses to their comments.
Comment I IC 11: The development is subject to an agreement with the Sierra Club to pay
fees to the Rose Foundation for cumulative air quality and agricultural land
conversion.
Response 1 IR 1l: The agreement is a private agreement between the Sierra Club and the
developer. The City is not party to the agreement and does not enforce
compliance.
The Sierra Club a gree ment requires the developer to offer solar photovoltaics IPV) as an
option. Since Title 24 will require all new houses to have solar PV next year, it should be
mandatory that this development be required to provide them.
_U Compliance with State Regulation Title 24 is required at the time of building permit
issuance, and verified through the plan check process.
Reliance on the GPA/ZC Negative Declarations is unreasonable because they do not
consider climate change, air quality, farm land loss, biological resources, light pollution
and various legislation adopted since then. The comment letters submitted by the Sierra
Club for GPA/ ZC 05-0943 and 06-0925 remain relevant to VTM 7335.
Rte: Most of the comments stated in the 2/21/19 letter were addressed in 2005 and 2007. The
City Council adopted findings that impacts would be less than significant incorporating
mitigation measures, and Mitigated Negative Declarations were adopted.
In response to impacts of air quality, greenhouse gas, and various air quality related
legislation adopted since 2007, staff finds that the project does not result in a significant
impact to warrant specific mitigation measures beyond those adopted for this project in
2005 and 2007. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has adopted
various rules and regulations since 2007 that apply to development separately from the
gAKE9
KFC:ieng/5:\TRACTS\7335\MemoT7335 SC Responedocx PogeI l0 ST
� m
J
OR13,NAL
City's environmental review. These regulations evolved from project specific mitigation
measures from the mid -2000's to APCD requirements now for all developments reducing
air quality emissions addressing a wide range of air quality impacts. Development of VTM
7335 into 117 single-family residential lots on 40 acres must adhere to these regulations,
and in doing so air quality impacts may be considered to be less than significant.
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated State
and Federal permits remain in effect. Specific guidelines addressing urban kit fox are
implemented through the MBHCP. Staff initiated preparation of a new Habitat
Conservation Plan to eventually replace the MBHCP. Pursuant to ther MBHCP, blunt -nose
leopard lizard (BNLL) do not occur with the southwest portion of Metro Bakersfield;
therefore, no impact to BNLL would result.
A Farmland Conversion Study was prepare in 2005 that concluded the change from
agricultural land for urban land uses resulted in less than significant impacts. The study
considered the conversion factors specified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
In addition, staff considered conversion of the lands subject of GPA/ ZC 05-0943 and 06-
0925 (approximately 140 total acres) in relation to the approximatly 2.72 million acres of
land in agricultural use in 2005. The finding that conversion of the 140 acres (of GPA/ ZC
05-0943 and 06-0925) to non-agricultural use was insignificant.
The project shall comply with all lighting standards within City street rights-of-way. The
developer may voluntarily apply "dark sky" principals through CC and Rs and BMC
Section 17.71 whose purpose is to minimize light trespass, excessive glare, and sky glow
caused by inappropriate or misaligned light fixtures. Properly designed lighting will
provide the proper amount of illumination appropriate for the required task that will not
cause unpleasant or adverse effects upon adjacent properties, and will enhance
nighttime views of the sky.
C4: City must prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR for this project
R4: In accordance with CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is
necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there
are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken
and no new environmental impacts have been identified. The environmental impacts
were adequately evaluated with the Mitigated Negative Declarations adopted for the
land use entitlement applications for related GPA/ZC 05-00943 and 06-0925. These
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for VTM
7335,
CONCLUSION:
The comments submitted in the 2/2)/19 letter primarily repeat comments the Sierra Club stated
in previous letters submitted for related GPA/ ZC 05-0943 and 06-0925. Staff's responses to the
letters submitted for GPA/ ZC 05-0943 and 06-0925 were deemed adequate by the City Council,
and the City Council's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declarations. With the supplemental
information provided above, staff recommends the Planning Commission make the finding
pursuant to CEQA Section 15162 that no further enviromentol documentation is required and
approve VTM 7335 as recommended.
aegpKF9
mT
> m
City of Bakersfield • 1715 Chester Avenue •Bakersfield, California • 93301
o L
oB;a,rrn
EXHIBIT D-3
KERN-K-NWEAH C'IL-kPTFR
P.O. Box 3357
Bakersfield, CA 93385
March 14, 2019
City Council
c/o Office of the City Clerk
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Council Members
We are hereby appealing the decision of the Bakersfield Planning Commission on March 7,
2019, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7335 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project.
The Sierra Club is an international environmental organization with approximately 3.5 million
members and supporters and approximately 1,600 members in the local chapter. We have
submitted letters and oral comments on this project. We have an interest in any decision that
might adversely affect the environment. In our opinion there are a number of harmful effects
of this decision.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration asserts that the cumulative impacts are less than
significant. Given this project and the many projects in the vicinity either approved or in the
approval process, it is clear that cumulative impacts to climate change, air quality, agricultural
land conversion, and traffic are significant, We are particularly concerned that these
cumulative impacts will further degrade the community's abysmal air quality, already some of
the worst in the nation and out of compliance with federal and state laws. We are also
concemed that the cumulatively increased traffic generated by this project and the others in
the area will cause even more unacceptable congestion on the streets in the region.
We suggest as well that the detrimental health effects of our dirty air have been well
recognized in medical literature but have not been sufficiently addressed either in the
environmental documents pertaining to this project or in any previous documents. We think
that it is in the interest of public health for decision -makers at the local level to acknowledge
and address the health crisis associated with the existing air pollution and with the increased
air pollution from this and other projects.
The City Development Services Department asserts that it is sufficient to refer to Negative
Declarations dating from 2005 and 2006 in addressing cumulative impacts. We will present
evidence that these documents are outdated and inadequate in their discussion of these
cumulative impacts, both legally and, more importantly, as a means of informing local
residents of the cumulative implications of this project. These documents contain no analysis
and no mitigation whatsoever for the critical issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses
o1<gAKe9N
y ,
V J
oa;a,nu
associated with this project, maybe the defining issue for our species — something we should
be addressing if we care at all about not leaving an overheated planet for next generations.
This project will convert 40 acres of agricultural land to residential use. There are a number
of possible agricultural land conversion mitigation measures that should be explored for this
project. The California Department of Conservation has stated, 'The Department encourages
the use of agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality and size as
partial compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land." The feasibility of this sort of
mitigation is well established since a number of projects elsewhere in California have used
agricultural conservation easements as partial mitigation for the conversion of prime
agricultural land to housing.
The Negative Declarations for this project are outdated and grossly insufficient as an
informational document. They contain little specific information, and most of what they
contain is applicable to any project anywhere. We have listed above, and in our February 21,
2019, letter on the project, a number of issues and questions that have not been addressed.
Many of these omissions limit our ability to understand the issue and to comment on it. We
suggest that full public disclosure is missing at this point, neglecting something that is not
only in the spirit of CEQA, but which is also a requirement of CEQA.
We ask the City Council to refer the project back to the planners to write a full EIR that would
address these and other relevant issues.
It is for these and other concerns in our written comments on this project and for others that
may arise in the meantime that we appeal to the Council. Please place the Sierra Club on
the distribution list for the Tract 7335 project to receive any noticing of meetings, hearings,
availability of documents. We prefer electronic formatting of documents and email
communications to the address below.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Nipp, Ph.D.
Vice -Chair
661-872-2432
o gAKF9N
T
v C
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT D-4
If this were the only project being proposed, its impacts would be small.
But thousands of new residences are in the pipeline. The City refuses to
address the cumulative impacts of new development.
• Cumulative impacts to climate change. Pope Francis recently said
that climate change has brought our world to °the limits of suicide'.
How can we in good conscience do nothing, as in this project?
• Cumulative impacts to air pollution. One out of every six kids has
asthma. If we care at all about the health of our community, we
should be addressing the cumulative impact of these projects on air
pollution.
• Farmland loss. How many thousands of total acres have been lost
with no mitigation?
The City does a disservice to our community by refusing to address these
cumulative impacts..
The two NDs that make up the project MND are thirteen and fourteen years
old and are way out of date — no consideration at all of climate change,
maybe the defining issue for our species. Climate -related risks to health,
livelihoods, food security, water supply, sea level rise, ocean
acidification, species loss and extinction, economic growth, extreme
weather, and much else are projected to increase, perhaps
catastrophically. We should be addressing climate change if we care
at all about not leaving an overheated planet for young folks and for
next generations.
Send this back to the planners; have them address climate change and
other cumulative impacts.
CITY OF SAKEFISAELD
PLANNRr G DEPARTMENT
o�0AKF9N
> T
r m
JORIO:NAf