The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutChapter 4_Second AddendumWest Ming Specific Plan - Recirculated Draft EIR Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\Recirculated DEIR\02160029_ Recirculated DEIR.doc Chapter 4: Second Addendum to Response to Comments on the Draft EIR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Bakersfield 661.334.2755 Fresno 559.497.0310 Irvine 714.508.4100 Palm Springs 760.322.8847 Sacramento 916.383.0944 San Bernardino 909.884.2255 San Ramon 925.830.2733 Santa Cruz 831.262.1731 www.brandman.com mba@brandman.com February 26, 2007 Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield Development Services Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Subject: Second Addendum to Response to Comments Document for West Ming Specific Plan Dear Ms. Eng: Subsequent to distributing the Response to Comments Document on December 8, 2006 for public review as well as the Addendum to the Response to Comments Document on December 14, 2006, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) determined that a second addendum is required. The following information is considered part of the Errata for the Response to Comments Document. The information includes modifications to the Draft EIR that clarify the environmental analysis in Section 5.8, Noise and in Section 6.3.8, Noise of the Draft EIR. In addition, there are two modifications to the Response to Comments Document in Section 5, Errata, that provide clarifications. The new information provided below merely clarifies the information in the EIR and is not significant. The third sentence in the first paragraph under Section 5.8.4 on Page 5.8-10 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Delete: “As shown in Table 5.8-5, one roadway segment in 2015 and four roadway segments in 2030 would expose adjacent sensitive uses to greater than 65 dB CNEL.” Add: “As shown in Table 5.8-5, two roadway segments in 2015 and three roadway segments in 2030 would expose adjacent onsite sensitive uses to greater than 65 dB CNEL.” The second sentence in the second paragraph on Page 5.8-10 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Delete: “Applying this to the exterior noise levels identified in Table 5.8-3, it may be concluded that the City’s interior CNEL standard of 45 dB may Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield February 26, 2007 Page 2 be exceeded at some of the proposed homes and potentially schools adjacent to South Allen Road, and White Lane.” Add: “Applying this to the exterior noise levels identified in Table 5.8-3, it may be concluded that the City’s interior CNEL standard of 45 dB may be exceeded at some of the proposed homes and potentially schools adjacent to White Lane and West Beltway.” This first column under “Roadway” in Table 6-1 in Section 6.3.8 on page 6-14 is revised to read as follows: Delete: “Jewetta Avenue” Add: “Buena Vista Road” The title of Section 5 of the Response to Comments Document on page 5-1 is revised as follows: Delete: “Section 5: Project Description” Add: “Section 5: Errata” Mitigation measure 5.1.A.1 on page 5-4 in the Response to Comments Document is revised as follows: Delete: “5.1.A.1 Prior to recordation of a final subdivision map for urban development, or approval of a Site Plan Review by the City of Bakersfield, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall mitigate loss of 2,182 acres of agricultural lands by selecting one or more of the items described below. Agricultural land shall meet the definition of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance established by the State Department of Conservation. In addition, as indicated at the same time described above, the applicant shall submit written verification of the applicant’s compliance of this mitigation to the Planning Director’s satisfaction. • Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying agricultural land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, Kern) or outside the San Joaquin Valley with Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield February 26, 2007 Page 3 written evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land. • Funding and purchase of agricultural conservation easements. Such easements shall be managed and maintained by an appropriate entity. • Purchase of credits from an established agricultural farmland mitigation bank. • Contribution of agricultural land or equivalent funding to an organization that provides for the preservation of farmland in California. • During the life of the project, if the City of Bakersfield or other responsible agency adopts an agricultural land mitigation program that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of agricultural land impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the applicant shall obtain written approval from the City of Bakersfield agreeing to the participation, and the applicant shall submit written verification of compliance with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. • The mitigation provided above shall be completed as lands within the project are developed such that mitigation will occur at least contemporaneously with the development of such lands. Add: “5.1.A.1 The applicant shall mitigate loss of 2,182 acres of agricultural lands, on a one-to-one basis, by selecting one or more of the items described below. The applicant shall submit written verification of the applicant’s compliance with this mitigation measure to the Planning Director’s satisfaction at the time of recordation of final tract maps and parcel maps for urban development or support facilities as contemplated in the West Ming Specific Plan. Compliance with this condition may be phased as the project is developed. The amount of agricultural land to be mitigated shall be equal to the amount of land being developed as each phase is developed. Funding and/or purchase of agricultural conservation easements. Such easements shall be accepted or purchased and monitored and enforced by a land trust or another appropriate entity. Funds may be used for Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield February 26, 2007 Page 4 easement purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Contribution of agricultural land or equivalent funding to an organization that provides for the preservation of farmland in California. Funds may be used for purchases, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, transaction costs, and reasonable administrative costs. Purchase of credits from an established agricultural farmland mitigation bank approved by applicable governmental authority. During the life of the project, if the City of Bakersfield or other responsible agency adopts an agricultural land mitigation program that provides equal or more effective mitigation than measures listed above, the applicant may choose to participate in that alternate program to mitigate loss of agricultural land impacts. Prior to participation in the alternate program, the applicant shall obtain written approval from the City of Bakersfield agreeing to the participation, and the applicant shall submit written verification of compliance with the alternate program at the same time described above in the first paragraph. Agricultural land used for mitigation shall be of at least equal agricultural classification as the land being converted or be capable of being developed as such; that is, mitigation land shall be classified or developed as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, etc., (as established by the California Department of Conservation in the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program), the mitigation acreage being at least equivalent in classification to the converted land, or being capable of producing the same or equivalent crops as the land being converted. Completion of the selected mitigation measure, or with the Planning Director’s approval, a combination of the selected mitigation measures, can be on qualifying agricultural land within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, Kern), or outside the San Joaquin Valley with written evidence that the same or equivalent crops can be produced on the mitigation land.” Ms. Jennie Eng, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield February 26, 2007 Page 5 As stated above, the new information provided above merely clarifies the information in the EIR and is not significant. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 MEH:ap H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\RTC\West Ming RTC Second Adendum 02.26.07.doc