HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 029-2021a
RESOLUTION NO. 02 ®�
RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENY THE APPEAL FOR ADOPTION OF
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MEDICAL OUTPATIENT CLINIC
IN THE M-2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING ZONE) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 5512
KNUDSEN DRIVE (WARD 3; SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 20-0102).
WHEREAS, SASD Development Group, LLC requested adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for a 39,648 square foot medical outpatient clinic on approximately 9
acres in an M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone district, located at the 5512 Knudsen Drive
(the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7, 2021
adopting the MND (Resolution No. 03-21); and
WHEREAS, Hagan Law Group, LLP filed an appeal on behalf of Progress for Bakersfield
Veterans, LLC with the City Clerk on January 15, 2021 of the Planning Commission's decision
to adopt the MND; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 3, 2021, at 5:15 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time
and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the appeal to the
Planning Commission decision of January 7, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services 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 City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning
the Project, including the staff report and the Planning Commission's deliberation and action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:
The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the
Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area,
posted on the City's website, and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a
local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.
3. The City Council has considered and concurs with the findings made by the
Planning Commission set for in Resolution No. 03-21, approved on January 7,
2021.
4. The appeal is denied and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Site Plan
Review No. 20-0102 is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures and
conditions of approval in Exhibit B and as shown in Exhibits A, which are
incorporated herein.
o�gAKF9
s�
� r
U O
CRIGIN.AL
5. The provisions of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures
have been followed. It was determined that the project does not have the
potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted, by the
Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on March 3, 2021 by the
following vote:
AYES:. COUNCILMEMBER: ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, FREEMAN, GRAY, PARLIER
COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: O^Q.
" `/\A' pykllyw)Al'
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED' MAR 0 3 2021
KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attor ey
BY
�O
VIRIDIAN GALLARDO-KING JJ
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits:
A. Location Map
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study
,�, AK, 9�
LP,
ifn
2 �_ r—
r
U O
ORIGINAL
Exhibit A:
Location Map
o``gAKF�s
P
r
U p
ORIGINAL
R-1
0
a
R-1 °
' H m.-LOMBARD
°
e
®. ROSC�R
a
........ CITY�LIMIT............._....._.......; 0
RAGA(T -o SPR 20-0102
° R-1 Y
R-1 °
_-BASILICATA DRQ M-1 e
e ° �
1 R-1 _ VENT
m
tuccnt
O ITY 0"cT e R-1
M 9--AREZZO CT-
� z°
. VIAMARIS
®E DR
R-1 p m
i
•BENEVENTO Ci® .Q °
R-1 °
s
C-2/P.C.D.
a /1 R-1 ♦ ` M-2 M-3
i
� a D
SPR 20-0102
la WOODROW AVE m - _ _
e
°® ®
R-1 One Family Dwelling
O ° m
`OE�C'l0 00 00��
^_ _ _ WASHINGTON,AYE-
R-1-4.5OneFamil Dwelling
o W
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size
°
E Estate
> e
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
R-5 Residential Suburban
O -ARTHUR AVE - - m
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
yo
R -S{ ) Residential Suburban
o
I, 2.5,5 or 10 min lot size
M-1
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
wm�p
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)
�.
o
6,000 sq.ft. min let size (multifamily)
de
00 e
Z
S/ATFRD ® O
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
� ® a
y�C4Nq4 Oe
t �
gy
d
i o° ®° °�9f`✓`P
R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling
m
OLI��— - ®®•° ' " ®" "
VE DR
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
600sq.ft.lotarea�dwellingunit
R -H Residential Holding
®
W
°
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20AAgriculture
9 O
m w
HANWRDr _ _ _ m
20 acre min lot size
r
PUD Planned Unit Development
% °®I�`
Is
O ®
e
MH Mobilehome
oe ®V�f
000♦
C-0 Professional and Administrative Office
00
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
eo o
e°
C-2 Regional Commercial
® I♦
C -C Commercial Center
oeo ° %
C -B Central Business
% 01 e
®.-�®
- �__--b—®__--OLIVE DR=__m_®m_---__
_®___ a..,": �-
4- � --
° °���
2a �G,
M-2 General Manufacturing
e % ®
M-3 Heavy Industrial
E2
P Automobile Parking
O�j
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
e
0 0
a
1m16,1,.:
o °
e e ♦
HOSP Hospital Overlay
N o e ��♦° y
AD Architectural Design Overlay
E
FP -P Floodplain Primary
Oo o O®j
c_2
° 1 1
O e
IOKE�
o O
SC Senior Citizen Overlay
a _ .. _ _ PEMBROKE AVE-
NO Hillside Development Combining
of
WM- West Ming Specific Plan
-AVEz
BAKERSFIELD
1
W
is
CHERRYI
®
°
m
D
m
m W
W
Z
e
W2
R -S
E
R-1
0
a
R-1 °
' H m.-LOMBARD
°
e
®. ROSC�R
a
........ CITY�LIMIT............._....._.......; 0
RAGA(T -o SPR 20-0102
° R-1 Y
R-1 °
_-BASILICATA DRQ M-1 e
e ° �
1 R-1 _ VENT
m
tuccnt
O ITY 0"cT e R-1
M 9--AREZZO CT-
� z°
. VIAMARIS
®E DR
R-1 p m
i
•BENEVENTO Ci® .Q °
R-1 °
s
C-2/P.C.D.
a /1 R-1 ♦ ` M-2 M-3
i
� a D
LEGEND
la WOODROW AVE m - _ _
(ZONE DISTRICTS)
°® ®
R-1 One Family Dwelling
O ° m
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
^_ _ _ WASHINGTON,AYE-
R-1-4.5OneFamil Dwelling
o W
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size
°
E Estate
> e
10,000 sq.ft. min lot size
®
R-5 Residential Suburban
O -ARTHUR AVE - - m
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit
yo
R -S{ ) Residential Suburban
o� p
I, 2.5,5 or 10 min lot size
a p
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
wm�p
4,500 sq.ft. min lot size (single family)
�.
o
6,000 sq.ft. min let size (multifamily)
°
°
2,500 sq.ft. lot area dwelling unit
S/ATFRD ® O
R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling
� ® a
y�C4Nq4 Oe
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
gy
1,259sq.ft.lotarea/dwelling unit
I ®
R-4 High Density Multiple Family Dwelling
m
OLI��— - ®®•° ' " ®" "
VE DR
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
600sq.ft.lotarea�dwellingunit
R -H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
°
6,000 sq.ft. min lot size
A-20AAgriculture
HANWRDr _ _ _ m
20 acre min lot size
PUD Planned Unit Development
% °®I�`
TT Travel Trailer Pork
O ®
e
MH Mobilehome
oe ®V�f
000♦
C-0 Professional and Administrative Office
00
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
eo o
e°
C-2 Regional Commercial
® I♦
C -C Commercial Center
oeo ° %
C -B Central Business
O e
PCO Planned Commercial Development
M-lLight Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
e % ®
M-3 Heavy Industrial
°
P Automobile Parking
O�j
RE Recreation
Ch Church Overlay
e
0 0
OS Open Space
o °
e e ♦
HOSP Hospital Overlay
N o e ��♦° y
AD Architectural Design Overlay
O ® �I♦ `
FP -P Floodplain Primary
FP -5 Floodplain Secondary
Oo o O®j
AA Airport Approach
DI Drilling Island
O e
PE Petroleum Extraction Combining
o O
SC Senior Citizen Overlay
NO Hillside Development Combining
of
WM- West Ming Specific Plan
0
BAKERSFIELD
..CITY,LIMIT..—........................... _ ,
.•� M-3 Feet
M-3 M-3 �.� I I
•i _ . TLAS,CT- - 0 300 600
-•� Daamenl Name: 2020 11 lazc
Exhibit B:
MND/Initial Study
o�gAKF9
s�
ORIGINAL
•
BAKERSFIELD
nEWUtMCF�VeA* NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the
possible environmental effects of the following -described project and has determined that a Negative
Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be
mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been
made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures.
PROJECT NO. (or Title): Site Plan Review 20-0102
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: December 4, 2020
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: January 5, 2020
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):
Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a construction worker cultural
awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of
employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural
resources specialist.
During construction, if buried paleontological or cultural resources are encountered during construction
or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area
cordoned off until a qualified cultural and/or paleontological resource specialist that meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make
recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant
resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance,
testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall
be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System's Southern San Joaquin Valley
Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.
3. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and
channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be
followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5(C) shall guide Native American consultation.
Please see Appendix A for Site Plan Conditions of Approval.
gAKF9
Page 1 of 35 (�si
5:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
U r—
O
OR101 n A
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1. Project Title: Site Plan Review No. 20-0102
2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
3. Contact Person
and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name
and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
Wayne Lawson
(661) 326-3976 (desk) or 326-3733 (receptionist)
5512 Knudsen Drive (APNs 365-020-28 and -30)
SASD Development Group, LLC
Attn: Steven Doctor
4895 Pacific Hwy
San Diego, CA 92110
M-2 (General Manufacturing)
SI (Service Industrial)
8. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):
The SASD Development Group, LLC (property owner), is proposing a Site Plan Review (SPR) to
develop a 39,648 square foot medial outpatient facility to serve as a Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) Community -Based Outpatient Clinic, with associated parking, on approximately 9 acres. The
project site is located at 5512 Knudsen Drive, which is generally on the east side of Knudsen Drive
and approximately 240 feet south of Olive Drive. The project would also include street
improvements for the street frontages on the east (Landco Drive), south (Street 'A'), and west
(Knudsen Drive).
The project proposes an outpatient clinic that would provide basic clinical services from 7:00 am to
5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The proposed clinic would include a one-story facility that would
provide primary and specialty care to include subspecialty clinics, audiology, physical and
occupational therapy, and ancillary and diagnostic services.
Access to the project site is proposed via three ingress/egress points at Knudsen Drive, Street 'A',
and Landco Drive (future Valor Drive). In addition, there is an existing sump in the vicinity of Street
"A" would be removed and replaced by four bio -retention basins distributed throughout the project
site.
�gP,KF9
�n
Page 2 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\M SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEC!A\IS_MND 20-0102 VA Clinic KG.doc ~ r
U O
rnlr�lrl a!
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.):
The project site consists of two undeveloped parcels of land. The nearest residential properties are
located over 1,000 feet to the east. Surrounding City and County areas are zoned and partially
developed with public and private uses found in commercial and industrial zones. To the north are
existing retail buildings along Olive Drive. To the east are the Beardsley Canal and several large,
undeveloped lots within unincorporated Kern County. To the south is vacant land and a partially
developed, multi -tenant complex that includes a furniture store and a mini storage facility. Along
the west side of Knudsen Drive are businesses that front on Olive Drive, a carwash, facilities for the
Kern County Fire Department, an elementary school, and a nursing facility.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
• Kern County Public Works ---Street improvements
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—Indirect Source Rule compliance
• State Water Resources Control Board—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General
Permit
• City of Bakersfield—Water,
Sewer, Street Improvement, and Encroachment Permits
• City of Bakersfield—Grading
permits
• City of Bakersfield—Building
permits
• City of Bakersfield—Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan compliance
• City of Bakersfield—Site
Plan Review
• City of Bakersfield—Regional
Transportation Impact Fee Program compliance
Appendices:
Appendix A: Site Plan Review Conditions of Approval
Appendix B: Site Plans
Appendix C: Maps
Page 3 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
ORIGINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with
respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the
incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hydrology/Water Quality
❑ Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Utilities/Service Systems
❑ Agriculture/Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑ Land Use/Planning
❑ Population/Housing
❑ Transportation
❑ Wildfire
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ Energy
❑ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Tribal Cultural Resources
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
negative declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
environmental impact report is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An
environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental
impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
12/02/2020
Signature Date
Kassandra Gale, Principal Planner
Printed name
o``gAKF9L
Page 4 of 35
i-- m
5:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA C1inic\CECW\l5_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc U O
ORIGINAL
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors, as well as general
standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative
as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Page 5 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\03_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o``gAKF9P
i— m
U r—
O
ORIGINAL
Environmental Issue
❑
Legs Than
❑
E
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Signlflcant
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
El
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially
With
Less Than
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
❑
El
❑
■
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
El
0
0
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
D
E]
❑
0
outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
❑
El
❑
■
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
❑
E]
❑
0
of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
El
E]
E]
E
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
❑
El
■
❑
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
❑
El
❑
E
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
El
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
N ❑
quality standard?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑
El
0 ❑
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
substantial number of people?
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
❑
El
❑
■
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
D
E]
❑
0
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion
❑
E]
❑
0
of forest land to non -forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
El
D
N ❑
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
❑
El
0 ❑
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
❑
1:1
■ 0
Page 6 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
ORIGINAL
Environmental Issue Less Than
Slgnlflcant
Potentlalty With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and ❑
b)
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the ❑
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct ❑
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
and Geology Special Publication 42.
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or ❑
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
iv. Landslides? ❑
a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ❑
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral ❑
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5? ❑
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ❑
c)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries? ❑
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a)
Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or ❑
operation?
b)
Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? ❑
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a)
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines ❑
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑
iv. Landslides? ❑
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral ❑
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
LI
Page 7 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEOA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
❑ ■
,-)RIGI�(IAL-
Environmental Issue
Potenficity
Significant
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporation Impact Impact
■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ IN
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ IN ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ IN ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
■❑
❑ ■
�g P KF,9s
Page 8 of 35 0 �,
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
f— r
V O
ORIGINAL
Impact
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
❑
waste water?
f)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
❑
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
❑
b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
❑
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
❑
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
❑
materials into the environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
❑
all
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
❑
hazard to the public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
❑
the project area?
f)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
❑
g)
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
❑
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
❑
b)
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
❑
management of the basin?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
❑
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite?
❑
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
❑
polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
❑
d)
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
❑
e)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
❑
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporation Impact Impact
■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ IN
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ IN ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ IN ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ❑ ■
❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑
■❑
❑ ■
�g P KF,9s
Page 8 of 35 0 �,
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
f— r
V O
ORIGINAL
Environmental Issue
Less Than
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
Slgnlflcant
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
Potentially
With
Less Than
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
Slgnlflcant
Mitigation
Significant
No
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
❑
❑
❑
■
environmental effect?
❑
❑
■
❑
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
❑
❑
■
❑
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to
❑
El
■
❑
the region and the residents of the state?
❑
❑
■
❑ ,
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
■
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general ❑ 11 ■ ❑
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? ■ ❑
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project;
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ El ❑ ■
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
❑
❑
■
❑
ii. Police protection?
❑
❑
■
❑
iii. Schools?
❑
❑
■
❑
iv. Parks?
❑
El
■
❑
v. Other public facilities?
❑
❑
■
❑
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
❑
❑
■
❑
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
❑
❑
■
❑
the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
❑
❑
■
❑
o��AKF
s
1P
Page 9 of 35
rn
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
r-
U O
ORIGINAL
Environmental Issue
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
❑ ❑ E ❑
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
❑ ❑ ❑ E
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
❑ 0
Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe?
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
❑ ❑ E El
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
❑ ❑ E ❑
c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
❑ ❑ E ❑
XX. WILDFIRES: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
❑ ❑ ■ 0
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
Ej ❑ N
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
❑ ❑ E ❑
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage
❑ ❑ E 0
changes?
Page 10 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
s
ORIGINAL
Environmental Issue Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a ❑ E ❑ ❑
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past ❑ ❑ N ❑
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ 0 El ❑
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
I. AESTHETICS
a. Less -than -significant impact. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the
project is predominantly existing residential land uses. The project does not conflict with
any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or
design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies, and the project is consistent with the
Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and zone districts per the
Zoning Ordinance for the project area. The project site is located within an area having
slopes from 0 to 5%. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or "scenic." The construction of a medical
outpatient clinic at the site would be in character and compatible with other existing
commercial and public facility uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of
the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b. No impact. Based on a field visit, it was determined that no trees, rock outcrops, buildings
(historic or otherwise), or other physical resources are apparent on the vacant property
and partially developed vicinity. State Highway 99 to the east and its abutting Olive
Drive southbound on-ramp are not subject to state or local scenic view shed protections.
Therefore, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or
potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2019). No impact.
c
No impact. The site and surrounding area are located within an urbanized area.
Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings in a nonurbanized area. The
proposed urban land use is contiguous with existing public facilities, commercial, and
industrial land uses that are allowed by City and County land use regulations. The project
and future City development are required to conform to City zoning provisions which
apply a range of site design criteria to new buildings, tenant improvements, and site
alterations involving office and medical buildings; require the screening of on-site views
into the private side and rear yards of residential uses in the vicinity; and require public
and private street frontage trees and groundcover plantings. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Page 11 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
s
ORIGINAL
d. Less -than -significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the
City of Bakersfield's jurisdiction. This project would have to comply with City development
standards, including Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as
well as California Code of Regulations Title 24 (building code). Together, these local and
state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting standards that
minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the
project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a. No impact. The project site is identified as Other Land by the California Important
Farmland Finder (DOC 2020). The site is not being farmed or grazed, and the site is
bordered by major streets and urban development. The biological evaluation indicates
the site is fallow and vacant (McCormick 2020). The project does not convert 100 acres
or more of the farmlands designated Prime, Unique, or of Statewide Importance to
nonagricultural uses. Therefore, the project would not significantly convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-
agricultural use.
b. No impact. The project site is currently zoned M-2 (General Manufacturing) and is not
under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned M-2. There are no forested lands
located on the site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production.
d. No impact. Please refer to response Il.c. The project would not result in the loss of
forestland or conversion of forest land to non -forest.
e. No impact. Please refer to responses Il.a through Il.d. This project is in an area designated
for urban development by the MBGP and the Zoning Ordinance. The project site is also
completely surrounded by existing and developing residential land uses. Therefore, the
project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use.
III. AIR QUALITY
a. Less -than -significant impact. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
(SJVAB). The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the
state 1 -hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter
less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The
SJVAB is also classified as in extreme nonattainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone
standard, nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance
for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 standards.
Page 12 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o��AKF9.n
s
m
ro
� r
ORIGINAL
Emission sources resulting from the project would include ground disturbance and other
construction -related work as well as operational emissions typical of a medical clinic
(e.g., predominantly emissions from autos and trucks).
The SJVAPCD encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that
reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in
the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
(GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air
quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan requirements
related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy
efficient heating and cooling building code requirements are consistent with these listed
strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quality
strategies for new residential and commercial developments include, but are not limited
to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005
building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 motor vehicle standards,
and compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Air Quality Conservation
Element as well as the SJVAPCD air quality guidelines and rules.
As shown in the following table, the SJVAPCD has established specific criteria pollutants
thresholds of significance for the operation of specific projects.
SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Tons/Year
CO
100
Reactive Organic Gas ROG
10
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
10
Sulfur Oxides SOX
27
PM10
15
PM2.5
15
Source: Trinity 2020
Construction of the project would result in air pollutant emissions. Emissions from
construction would result from fuel combustion and exhaust from equipment as well as
vehicle traffic, grading, and the use of toxic materials (e.g., lubricants). The following
table provides estimated construction emissions because of the project.
rrinity 2020 (Table 5-1)
As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed
SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels.
Page 13 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o``,bAK, 9q
T
ORIGINAL
Construction Emissions
Construction Year
ROG
NOx
Pollutant
CO
tons/ ear
Sox
PM 10 1
PM2.5
Year 2020 Emissions
0.10
0.97
0.60
0.001
0.16
0.10
Year 2021 Emissions
0.28
2.56
2.36
0.005
0.19
0.14
Year 2022 Emissions
0.37
1.33
1.40
0.003
0.10
0.07
Max Annual Emissions
0.37
2.56
2.36
0.005
0.19
0.14
SJVAPCD Emissions Thresholds
10
10
100
27
15
15
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
rrinity 2020 (Table 5-1)
As shown in the above table, construction emissions are not predicted to exceed
SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels.
Page 13 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o``,bAK, 9q
T
ORIGINAL
Project operations would also result in air pollutant emissions. Vehicle trips to and from the
development would be the primary source of operational emissions. The following table
provides estimated operational emissions because of the project.
Source: Trinity 2020
As shown in the above table, unmitigated and mitigated operational emissions are also
not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels.
Specific to this project, the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) Assessment (Trinity
Consultants 2020) outlines a number of recommended measures to ensure that the
project complies with the air quality plan. The Site Plan Review will include a standard
condition of approval (Condition B.12) requiring that the developer meet all regulations
of the SJVAPCD concerning dust suppression during construction of the project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Under GAMAQI, any project that would have individually
significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air
quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the
combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality
standards. The following table shows the project's contribution to cumulative emissions
calculated for both Kern County and the greater SJVAB.
Operational Emissions
Cumulative Emissions
Emissions Source
Emissions
Inventory
ROG
Pollutant
tons/ ear
tons/ ear
SOX
PM10
ROG NOx CO SOx I PM10
PM2.5
Unmitigated
26,426
58,108
949
16,097
4,964
SJVAB - 20121
-Operational Emissions
0.45
0.63
2.64
0.009
0.81
0.22
SJVAPCD Threshold
10
10
100
27
15
15
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
1 0.0002 1
0.0005
1 0.00051
0.00018
0.0006
0.0005
1 Latest inventory available as of May 2018.
-Mitigated
-Operational Emissions
0.44
0.60
2.51
0.008
0.75
0.21
SJVAPCD Threshold
10
10
100
27
15
15
Threshold Exceeded?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: Trinity 2020
As shown in the above table, unmitigated and mitigated operational emissions are also
not predicted to exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds levels.
Specific to this project, the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) Assessment (Trinity
Consultants 2020) outlines a number of recommended measures to ensure that the
project complies with the air quality plan. The Site Plan Review will include a standard
condition of approval (Condition B.12) requiring that the developer meet all regulations
of the SJVAPCD concerning dust suppression during construction of the project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Under GAMAQI, any project that would have individually
significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air
quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the
combined emissions from the project and other planned projects exceed air quality
standards. The following table shows the project's contribution to cumulative emissions
calculated for both Kern County and the greater SJVAB.
As shown in the above table, the project does not pose a significant increase to
estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern
County and the greater SJVAB. The project's regional contribution to cumulative impacts
would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants under consideration) and
therefore, the project's contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
AK4
Page 14 of 35 a
S:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND _20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc U Or—
ORIGINAL
Cumulative Emissions
Emissions
Inventory
ROG
NOX
Pollutants
CO
tons/ ear
SOX
PM10
PM2.5
Kern County -
20121
36,026
26,426
58,108
949
16,097
4,964
SJVAB - 20121
218,964
119,282
490,998
4,526
117,567
40,150
Project
0.44
0.60
2.51
0.008
0.75
0.21
Project % of Kern
0.000012
0.002
0.0043
0.0008
0.0046
0.004
Pro ect % of SJVAB
1 0.0002 1
0.0005
1 0.00051
0.00018
0.0006
0.0005
1 Latest inventory available as of May 2018.
As shown in the above table, the project does not pose a significant increase to
estimated cumulative emissions for criteria pollutants in nonattainment within Kern
County and the greater SJVAB. The project's regional contribution to cumulative impacts
would be negligible (well less than 1% for all pollutants under consideration) and
therefore, the project's contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
AK4
Page 14 of 35 a
S:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND _20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc U Or—
ORIGINAL
Additionally, the GAMAQI, citing California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 15064(h)(3), states on page 66 that "[a] Lead Agency may determine that a
project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively
considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved
plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or
maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially
lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is
located" (SJVAPCD 2015).
The City's Site Plan Review standard conditions of approval and State law require
compliance with air quality control measures and rules required by the SJVAPCD, which
include, but are not limited to, SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), SJVAPCD Rule
2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance),
and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule), each of which is discussed below.
SJVAPCD Rule 2010 requires any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating
any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an
Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD Air Pollution Control
Officer (APCO). The project will comply with this rule by obtaining authorization from
APCO prior to commencing construction on the project.
SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires review and offset of stationary sources of air pollution and
no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified
stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. This is achieved
through the use of mechanisms as approved by the SJVAPCD, such as emission trade-
offs by which a permit to construct or operate any source pollution is granted. The
project will comply with this rule by demonstrating compliance when obtaining
authorization from APCO under Rule 2010. For example, compliance with Rule 2201 may
include using Best Available Control Technology and providing emission offsets.
SJVAPCD Rule 4102 protects the health and safety of the public by prohibiting discharge
from any source whatsoever of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance,
or other annoyance to any considerable number of people. The project will comply with
this rule by not discharging air contaminants or other materials, which cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people.
SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) associated
with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the
San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or
exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than
2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of light industrial space,
10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 residential units). The project is subject
to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold. Accordingly, the
project must reduce a portion of the emissions occurring during construction and
operational phases through on-site measures, or pay off-site mitigation fees. The
objective of this rule is to reduce construction NOX and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%,
respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and
50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses
CalEEMod (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NOX and PM10
for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce
emissions pursuant to this rule include, but are not limited to, incorporating energy
�gAKF�
Page 15 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc' m
r—
U O
ORIGINAL
efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project,
using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using
alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops.
When a development project cannot reduce its NOX and PM10 emissions to the level
required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an
offsite emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off-site mitigation fees
are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives
Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project.
Due to the fact that 1) the air quality modeling indicates that the project's regional
contribution to cumulative impacts would be negligible and 2) the project is required by
State law and the standard conditions of approval to comply with the requirements of
the SJVAPCD attainment plans and rules, the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore,
impacts are less than significant.
c. Less -than -significant impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air
pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that
expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of
the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include residences, retirement facilities,
hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the
elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory
diseases.
Sensitive receptors are expected to visit the clinic for outpatient services. Within 2 miles,
the SPAL identified nine sensitive receptors including elementary schools, daycare
facilities, and the Good Samaritan Hospital. The analysis concluded that based on the
project's operational emissions and activity types, the proposed project would not result
in any impacts on any on-site or off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d. Less -than -significant impact. The SPAL assessment concluded that the project would not
emit any nuisance odors resulting from the expected uses (Trinity 2020). Therefore, the
project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people,
and impacts are less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Les -than -significant impact. A Biological Study was completed for the proposed project
(McCormick 2020). The study determined that San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) (Vulpes
macrotis mutica) and burrowing owl (BUOW) (Achene cunicularia) have a potential to
occasionally occur on the project site. No active indicators of occupation or use by
these species (e.g., scat, tracks, nesting materials, prey remains, or any other sign) were
identified during the field survey; however, suitable denning habitats were observed that
have the potential to be used by these species in the future.
The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation
Plan (MBHCP) and associated Section 10(a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued by
USFWS and CDFW, respectively. The project is also subject to ITP No. 2081-2013-058-04
(ITP) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). These
documents are hereby incorporated by reference. Terms of these permits require
Page 16 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o``�AKF9 n
s
ORIGINAL_
applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation
fees and notify agencies prior to grading in areas covered under the permit.
The current MBHCP expires on February 28, 2022. To ensure take of covered species does
not occur after the expiration date, fees must be paid no later than August 31, 2021 and
all covered activities must be completed by the MBHCP expiration date of February 28,
2022. As determined by the City, only projects ready to be issued an urban development
permit, grading plan approval, or building permit will be eligible to pay fees under the
current MBHCP. 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. Urban development permits issued after the 2022 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 & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
The MBHCP does not cover the protection of BUOW. However, BUOW is a migratory bird
species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBIA) of
1918 (16 United State Code 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy,
sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by
implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 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.
Compliance with the MBHCP and applicable State laws and regulations governing the
protection of candidate, sensitive, or special status species are included as a standard
condition of approval for the Site Plan Review (Condition B.9). Therefore, no additional
mitigation is required and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. The Biological study determined that there is no riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community located within the project site (McCormick 2020). The
project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area.
Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. No impact. Based on the results of the field survey and a review of the USFWS National
Wetlands Inventory, there are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal
Clean Water Act (CWA), located within the project site (McCormick 2020). Therefore, the
project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally -protected wetlands.
d. Less -than -significant impact. The project site is isolated from natural areas, is not within
the Kern River floodplain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the MBHCP), and is not along a
canal that has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife
species. Therefore, it was concluded that the project would not interfere with wildlife
movement (McCormick 2020).
There is the potential during construction and related activities to temporarily affect
nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct
destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special -
status wildlife to abandon a nursery site. Compliance with the MBHCP pre -construction
surveys and applicable State laws and regulations governing the protection of
candidate, sensitive, or special status species are included as a standard condition of
�$AK,c9
Page 17 of 35 o s1
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc -Fn
G o
ORIGINAL
approval for the Site Plan Review (Condition B.9). Therefore, the project would not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e. Less -than -significant impact. It was concluded that the project site does not contain any
biological resources that are protected by local policies. The project is located within the
boundary of the MBHCP, which addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan
Bakersfield General Plan area. The MBHCP has been adopted as policy and is
implemented by ordinance. The development entitled by this proposal would be
required to comply with the MBHCP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
f. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e. All
development within the City that requires a grading permit is subject to MBHCP
compliance prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. No Impact. A Cultural Resources Records Search was prepared for the project site
(SSJVIC 2020). The search concluded that there are no recorded cultural resources within
the project area, including the project site, that are listed on any of the historic registers.
Additionally, the site is vacant and therefore, it has been verified in the field that no
structures, including potentially historic structures, are located at the project site.
Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource.
b. Less -than -significant with mitigation incorporated. It has been concluded that the
project site does not contain any known archaeological resources (SSJVIC 2020). In
addition, the project site has been disturbed by disking, fire, and other uses provided the
site is surrounded by urban development. Therefore, it is unlikely that a surface pedestrian
survey would provide reliable data on the likelihood of subsurface cultural resources.
There is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the
site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities have the potential to damage or
destroy such resources. Mitigation Measure 1 requires ceasing work and investigating any
discovery by qualified experts in the event that previously unknown archaeological
resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 1, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains
within the project site. The project could inadvertently uncover or damage previously
unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 2 requires that if any human remains are
found at the site during construction, work will cease and the remains would be handled
pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, the project
would not significantly disturb any human remains.
Page 18 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o``gAKF9�
U O
ORIGINAL.
VI. ENERGY
a. Less -than -significant impact. Clinic construction will require temporary energy demands
typical of other office and/or commercial construction projects that occur throughout
the state and this development's construction would not result in inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical construction. All new
construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to modern building standards,
including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency
standards for new buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or
unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially
significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
b. Less -than -significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed in Vl.a, all new development
projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to
energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go
beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient
through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy,
highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available
applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005
building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to
substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a
seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major
active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these
major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge -Kern County, Garlock,
Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected
to occur within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults
have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern
County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve
strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.
No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface
trace of a fault during an earthquake. The project site is not included within the
boundaries of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined in the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (DOC 2019b). Therefore, the project would not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
Less -than -significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future
structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City
ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
(specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction
requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake
construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or
o�gAKF9
Page 19 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA C1inic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_Mcloc r__
U O
ORIGINAL
structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground
shaking.
iii. Less -than -significant impact. The most common seismic -related ground failure is
liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground
motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform
from a solid state to near -liquid state because of increased pore water pressure.
Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soils
in order for such ground failure to occur. The project site's soils are Kimberlina fine
sandy loam, saline -sodic, 0 to 2% slopes, which are generally well draining (USDA
2019). As a result, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. In
addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law
and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would
not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving
seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction.
iv. No Impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by
earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern
River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and
stream bank failure, rock slide, and slope slip on steep slopes (Bakersfield 1997).
The project site is generally flat, there are no such geologic features located at
the project site, and the site is not located near the Kern River Canyon. Therefore,
the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects involving landslides.
b. Less -than -significant impact. The prevailing soil type in the vicinity is Kimberlina fine sandy
loam, 0-2 percent sloped, which has low-to-medium susceptibility to soil erosion by
rainfall, and low susceptibility to wind erosion at the ground surface (USDA 1988 and
USDA WSS 2020). The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6
inches/year] results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature. The
erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that the soils are well
drained does not make the project site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil.
Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the
removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm
water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Genera/ Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because
the project would result in one or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the
requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
would need to be prepared that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to
prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving
offsite. Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate
erosion of soil during construction activities.
During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered
specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with
impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to
soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.
Page 20 of 35
S:\Counter Operation s\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
gAK4 99
� m
U p
ORIGINAL
c. Less -than -significant impact. As discussed in Vll.a.iii and Vll.a.iv, the project site's soils
would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving
seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. In
addition, the site is not in or near a subsidence area mapped by the U.S. Geological
Service.
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact
under the addition of water or excessive loading. Because the project site is derived from
alluvium, which is generally loose material, there is the potential for collapsible soils.
Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City
ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including
those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.
d. Less -than -significant impact. When a soil has 35% or more clay content, it is considered a
clayey soil. Kimberlina soils generally have 6 to 25% clay content (USDA 2009) and
therefore, do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures
proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be
constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to
soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil
creating substantial risks to life or property.
e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer
services in the area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of
adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is
determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils.
Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface
expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is
therefore derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit.
According to the California Department of Conservation's Geologic Map of California,
the project site consists of Quaternary nonmarine sedimentary geologic formations. This
geological formation consists of older alluvium deposits that have the potential to
contain unknown paleontological resources or unique geologic features.
Similar to archaeological resources, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown
paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground -disturbing activities
that exceed a depth of 10 feet have the potential to damage or destroy such resources.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, the project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Page 21 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_Mcloc
ORIGINAL
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Less -than -significant impact. The project would generate an incremental contribution
and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse
gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts. Although the project
is expected to emit GHG, the emission of GHG by a single project into the atmosphere is
not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased
accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere
that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate
change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project's GHG emissions typically
would be relatively very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and,
consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate
change. Therefore, a project's GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential
impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.
The project's GHG emissions were estimated and are summarized in the following table.
Construction and Operational GHG Emissions
Source
Metric Tons/Year
CO2 CH4 N20
CO2E1
2022 Project Operations
941.92 4.05 0.005
1,044.64
2005 Business as Usual BAU
2004.84 4.80 0.005
2,126.28
BAU Project Emissions Reduction
50.9%
1CO2E = carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Trinity 2020
According to the SJVAPCD, for a project to conform to the goals of AB 32, at least a 29%
reduction from the 2002-2004 business -as -usual (BAU) period by 2020 must be
demonstrated. As shown in the above table, the mitigated project would conform to AB
32 goals and result in a 50.9% reduction in GHG emissions in comparison to BAU, which is
far greater than the AB 32 -mandated 29% reduction. The impacts of this project are not
considered significant given the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHG from the
project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at
the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations adopted
pursuant to AB 32. Regulation and policy that would result in the reduction of GHG
emissions in new residential and commercial developments include, but are not limited
to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005
building energy efficiency standards, AB 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance
with the MBGP Air Quality Conservation Element as well as SJVAPCD air quality guidelines
and rules. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
b. Less -than -significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration
of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. According to
California's Climate Change Scoping Plan, there must be statewide reduction GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
means cutting approximately 29% from BAU emission levels projected for 2020. In
addition, per SB 375 requirements, CARB has adopted regional reduction targets, which
call for a 5% reduction in per -capita emissions by 2020 and 10% reduction in 2035 within
the San Joaquin Valley using 2005 as the baseline. These regional reduction targets will
be a part of the Kern COG Sustainable Communities Strategy. The SJVAPCD has
adopted guidance (Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission
�gAKF9
Page 22 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc M
U O
ORIGINAL
Impacts for New Projects under CEQA) and a policy (District Policy - Addressing GHG
Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects under CEQA When Serving as the Lead
Agency).
As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or
local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The
project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it
would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the
Scoping Plan by achieving BAU GHG emissions reduction greater than the 29% targeted
reduction goal. The project is consistent with these statewide measures and considered
not significant or cumulatively considerable under CEQA. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Less -than -significant impact. The proposed project would include the routine use and
disposal of hazardous materials related to medical treatment. Standard conditions of
approval for the project include the creation of a hazardous material management plan
(Condition C.7) and separate approval from the Kern County Health Department for
infectious waste services (Condition G.5). Additionally, medical facilities are subject to
county, state, federal, and, specialized industry oversite and regulations that address
unique medical hazards.
Construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of
hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction
equipment, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could
release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in
temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types
of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and
create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All
transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of
the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations.
During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable
materials present at the site would be made readily available to onsite personnel. During
construction, non -hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at
approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal
would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible onsite
locations.
Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response VIX.a. Therefore, the project would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material
into the environment.
c. Less -than -significant impact. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are
residences located roughly 1,000 feet beyond the existing commercial uses and county
facilities to the northwest and west. San Lauren Elementary School and an assisted living
facility are located one-quarter mile southwest of the site. The SPAL Assessment
o``gAKF9�
Page 23 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc U
O
ORIGINAL
concluded that the project would not significantly affect such receptors (Trinity 2020).
Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or
proposed school.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 2019) and Cortese (CalEPA 2019) lists pursuant to
Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is
identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns.
Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. Less -than -significant impact. The project site is within Compatibility Area C of Meadows
Field Airport as shown in the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (APLUCP)
(Kern County 2012). The project site is outside the areas that are identified as being
adversely affected by airport noise. Regarding other airport related risks to occupants,
the Meadows Field land use exhibit (Kern County 2012, Figure 4-36) allows commercial,
industrial, and low-density residential uses within the project area. The plan also allows
the construction of medical clinics and two-story offices within APLUCP zones B and C,
subject to a density limitation of 150 persons/acre. As designed, the approximately 9 -
acre development would not exceed the allowable density. Therefore, the project
would not result in an additional safety hazards beyond the baseline condition of the
range of land use activities the APLUCP allows including adjacent commercial uses.
Existing airplane noise as part of the baseline condition for the site, and interior and
exterior noise standards, ensure that existing airplane noise is not beyond these standards
and excessive. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Less -than -significant impact. The project would have to develop or improve roads to the
site as well as internal roads that are compliant with the City's Fire Code to allow
emergency vehicles adequate access to the site and all portions of the site. Access to
the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate
detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project
would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans
because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area
circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not
inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan
(Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of
emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the
project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Less -than -significant impact. The project site is not located within a "very high," "high," or
"moderate" fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2008). The site consists of vacant land, and
its vicinity is developed with residential land uses that do not possess high fuel loads that
have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with
hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the
site. Additionally, the City and County require "defensible space" within areas of the
County susceptible to wildland fires as shown on CalFire maps through the Fire Hazard
Reduction Program. Defensible space is the buffer created between a building and the
grass, trees, shrubs, or any wildland area that surrounds it. Therefore, the project would
not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild
Page 24 of 35
5:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
o``gAKF9�
C) Oo
ORIGINAL
land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wild lands.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Less -than -significant impact. Construction would include ground -disturbing activities.
Disturbance of onsite soils during construction could result in soil erosion and siltation, and
subsequent water quality degradation through increased turbidity and sediment
deposition during storm events to offsite locations. Additionally, disturbed soils have an
increased potential for fugitive dust to be released into the air and carried offsite. As
described in Vll.b, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. To
conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a SWPPP would need to be prepared
that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from moving offsite. The project is
required to comply with the General Permit because project -related construction
activities would disturb at least 1 acre of soil.
The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The
project's operational urban storm water discharges are covered under the Central
Valley Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No.
CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the
implementation of a storm water management framework to ensure that water quality is
maintained within the City because of operational storm water discharges throughout
the City, including the project site. By complying with the General Permit and MS4 Permit,
the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by the
California Water Service. The project is proposing a permitted use in the M-2 zone, and
therefore, the project's projected water use has been considered by CalWater against
its most current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). By state law, current UWMPs do
not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or
sustainable groundwater management at this time. It was concluded that the agency
has sufficient existing capacity to service the project. As a result, the project would not
substantially -deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level.
c. The following discusses whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.
Less -than -significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue -line
streams or other surface water features (McCormick 2020) and therefore, the
project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be
graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be
altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in
increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking
area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in
greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled,
differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in
Page 25 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
OR1GIML
substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. However, the project would be
required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit
during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires
compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an
approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and
siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite.
Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project
would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or offsite.
iii. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project
would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
iv. No Impact. The project site is located outside the 500 -year floodplain and is not
located within a 100 -year flood hazard area (FEMA 2019). Therefore, the project
would not impede or redirect flood flows.
d. Less -than -significant impact. As discussed in responses X.g and IX.h, the project is not
located within a floodplain. There are no nearby levees that would be susceptible to
failure or flooding of the site. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the
Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would
experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake
Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern
County 2009) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and
short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would
utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans (EDPs). With
implementation of the Evacuation Plan, the project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
e. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted
groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of
the City and Kern County and is adjacent to existing commercial and industrial land uses.
The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track,
block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project is the
development of a finite 9 -acre project site that does not impede existing or future
movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would not physically divide
an established community.
Page 26 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Cl1nic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
gAK' 9q
p
I— m
U r
O
ORI(3!I\!AI
b. No impact. The proposed project is a permitted use within the M-2 (General
Manufacturing) zone district, and is consistent with the SI (Service Industrial) land use
designation. Furthermore, the site plans for the project have been. designed in
accordance with all applicable development standards. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. Less -than -significant impact. A record search of the California Department of
Conservation Well Finder indicates that a plugged gas and oil well is located south of the
proposed medical facility and within the vicinity of future Street "A' (CaIGEM 2020). The
project includes a standard condition of approval (Condition B.1 1) requires the
developer to contact The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CaIGEM)
and undertake any required remediation pursuant to State requirements. Therefore, the
project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated SI (Service Industrial) within a M-2
(General Manufacturing) zone district. No portion of the site is designated for a potential
mineral resource extraction use such as R -MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the
project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource
recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan.
XIII. NOISE
a. Less -than -significant impact. The project would generate both short-term construction
noise and operational noise. The first type of short-term construction noise would result
from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, and
construction worker commutes. These transportation activities would incrementally raise
noise levels on access roads leading to the site. A one-time trip to move pieces of heavy
equipment for grading and construction activities would result in single -event noise at a
distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor that would reach a maximum level of
84 A -weighted decibels (dBA). Because the equipment would be left onsite for the
duration of project construction, the one-time trip would not add to the daily traffic noise
in the project vicinity. The total daily vehicle trips resulting from construction worker
commutes would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected
streets, and the long-term noise level change would not be perceptible.
The second type of short-term construction noise is related to noise generated during
project construction. The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation
and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving
equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Construction noise levels during
grading would be less than 70 dBA, which would not exceed the hourly noise level
standard at the nearest sensitive uses. Construction noise would cease to occur once
project construction is completed. The project will also be required to comply with the
construction hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance, which states that construction
o�eAKF��
Page 27 of 35 m
r
SACounter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\I5_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc U p
ORIGINAL
activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends.
Project operations would generate sound levels typical of a commercial land use, which
are permitted uses on the project site and are required to be built and operate in
compliance with Bakersfield Municipal Code and the Noise Element. Therefore, the
project would not subject its customers and staff to unacceptable noise levels, and
would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Some ground -borne vibration and noise would originate
from earth movement and building activities during the project's construction phase.
Ground -borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to
moderate. The closest structures are commercial buildings to the north along Olive Drive,
and the Kern County fire training facilities on the west side of Knudsen Drive. The
operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground -borne vibrations
that would not exceed guidelines that are considered safe for any type of buildings.
Operation of the proposed use would not generate ground -borne vibration. Therefore,
the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne
vibration or ground -borne noise levels.
c. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response IX.e. The site is beyond the APLUCP
60 CNEL boundary of Meadows Field Airport. Therefore, the project would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project
located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Less -than -significant impact. The project proposes a suburban outpatient clinic focused
on military veterans. This project would accommodate the projected increase in
Bakersfield's population by providing outpatient services for existing and future residents
in Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly or indirectly.
b. No impact. The project site consists of vacant land. Therefore, the project would not
displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical
impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly
correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population's need for
services beyond what is currently available.
Less -than -significant impact. The proposed medical clinic will be privately owned
and operated. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are
provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and
County. The project may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and
personnel to maintain current levels of service, and this potential increase in fire
Page 28 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
s
ORIGINAL
protection services can be paid for by property taxes or in lieu fees generated by
this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection.
H. Less -than -significant impact. The proposed medical clinic will be privately owned
and operated. Police protection for the project would be provided by the
Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increase in services can be paid for by
property taxes or in lieu fees generated by this development. Therefore, the
project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
iii. Less -than -significant impact. The medical outpatient clinic is proposed to
accommodate existing and future residents within the City. Therefore, the project
would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools.
iv. Less -than -significant impact. The proposal does not include nor require the
construction of recreational facilities, and park impact fees are not required for
commercial and industrial land uses. Therefore, the project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for parks.
V. Less -than -significant impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would
result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project
may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential
increase can be paid for by property taxes or in lieu fees generated by this
development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for other public facilities.
XVI. RECREATION
a. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project
would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated.
�gAKFq
Page 29 of 35 I-
PO
Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND 20-0102 VA Clinic KG.doc I— m
r
U (__7
ORIGINAL
b. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project
would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Less -than -significant impact. The project would result in temporary construction -related
traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as
construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area's
roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for
oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their
size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of
service (LOS) on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of
vehicle trips associated with all construction -related traffic (including construction worker
trips) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and
intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to
safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built,
it would not result in any permanent traffic -related effects.
A Trip Generation Analysis was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering
Division of the Public Works Department (Ruettgers & Schuler 2020), along with the
proposed site plans. It was determined that the project has been designed in
accordance with City development standards, and appropriate standard conditions of
approval have been assigned to the project. The conditions include the dedication and
improvement of streets, traffic control measures during construction, pedestrian access,
and the payment of impact fees. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Section 15064.3 of the updated CCR (or CEQA Guidelines),
statewide application came into effect July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states:
Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable
threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally,
projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a
stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to
cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease
vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions
should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no
impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less
than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects,
agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of
transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable
requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been
adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional
transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as
provided in Section 15152.
gAK, 9q
Page 30 of 35 ;
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA C1inic\CEQA\I5_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc U r
O
ORIGINAL
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to
estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being
considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's vehicle miles
traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors
such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For
many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be
appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most
appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled,
including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita,
per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models
to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those
estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.
Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions
to model outputs should be documented and explained in the
environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of
adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this
section.
It was determined that the project would generate 1,149 average daily trips, which is
consistent with the designated land use analyzed by the current Bakersfield General Plan
(Ruettgers 8, Schuler 2020). The project is a permitted use in the M-2 zone district, but is
less intensive than other permitted uses that could be developed by right such as a large
commercial center or industrial complex. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict
or be inconsistent with CCR Section 15064.3(b).
c. Less -than -significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions
placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted
traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the
roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the City limits
and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use
designations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses.
d. Less -than -significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase,
the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor
impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project
would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires
lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public
Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to
comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate
emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works
Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In
addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development
standards. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. No impact. The proposal is not a general plan amendment, so consultation pursuant to
Senate Bill 18 is not required. In addition, as of this writing, the City has not received any
oQ�AKF9
s�
Page 31 of 35 >
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA C1inic\CEQA\I5_1V1ND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc p
ORIGINAL
request for consultation under Assembly Bill 52. A California Historical Resources
Information System records search was conducted for the proposed project, and no
resources were identified (SSJVIC 2020). The Planning Division has not received
information which identifies or suggests the presence of resources within the project
area. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical
Resources or in a local register of historical resources.
b. No impact. See response to XVllll.a. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the
lead agency to be significant.
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Less -than -significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water,
storm water drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities,
natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.)
typical of residential development. Water, storm water, and sewer structures would have
to be designed to meet the City's Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual
(Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the such
facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Electrical, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these
entities already have in place safety and siting protocols to ensure that placement of
new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b. Less -than -significant impact. The designated water purveyor is California Water Service.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City must receive evidence the
development has secured the water service, and will construct needed improvements in
accordance with the provider's standards and other improvement practices.
Additionally, the City Water Resources Department has conditioned this facility to submit
engineering plans for any required facilities for their review. Therefore, Therefore, the
project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
c. Less -than -significant impact. The project site falls within the North of the River Sanitary
District, and is a permitted use within the zone designation. The project site's contribution
to the available capacity of their respective facilities has been included in the agency's
Capacity Fee and Municipal Service Review and therefore, there is sufficient capacity to
serve the project. As a result, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.
d. Less -than -significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated as a result of the
project would be disposed at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road,
Bakersfield, CA 93307. In accordance with city standards which are designed to achieve
State waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public
Works has examined the facility and conditioned the proposal to incorporate
appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to city approval. Therefore, the project would
Page 32 of 35
S:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive—VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc
oQ�AKF9
0
a �
t— m
r—
U p
ORIrIRAL
be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs.
e. Less -than -significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste
reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal.
XX. WILDFIRE
a. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response IX.f. Therefore, the project would
not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
b. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to response IX.g. Additionally, the project site is
relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel
loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks
and therefore, fire -related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not
exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors.
c. Less -than -significant impact. Please refer to responses IX.a, XX.a, and XX.b. Therefore, the
project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment.
d. Less -than -significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain,
and is not in a moderate- to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not
expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project is subject to the
terms of the MBHCP and associated Section 10(a) (1) (b) and Section 2801 permits issued
to the City of Bakersfield by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all
development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate
known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. There are no important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site;
however, there is potential for unknown cultural resources to be encountered during
ground -disturbing activities, which is addressed by Mitigation Measure 1. Therefore, the
project, with mitigation, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory.
b. Less -than -significant impact. As described in the responses above, the project has no
impacts that would be defined as individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
�gAK�c9
Page 33 of 35 o s
S:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEO,A\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc y
m
r—
U O
ORIGINAL
c. Less -than -significant impact. As described in the responses above, the project would not
have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST
1. Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January.
2. Bakersfield. 2019. Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.
3. Bakersfield. 1994. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Report.
4. Bakersfield. 2017. Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Available:<http://www.bakersfieldcify.us/gov/depfs/public works/sewer/wastewater_treatm
ent-plants.htm>. Accessed: September 17, 2018.
5. Bakersfield. 2017. Bakersfield Register of Historic Places; Area of Historic Interest; and National
Register of Historic Places.
6. CaIEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. Cortese List Data Resources.
Available:<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselisf/>. Accessed: October 27, 2020.
7. CaIGEM. 2020. Geologic Energy Management Division, formerly the Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources -Well Finder. Available:
<htfps://maps.conservation.co.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModa1/-
1 19.05623/35.41312/16>. Accessed October 12, 2020.
8. CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2008. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in
LRA, Kern County. Available:
<http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/kern/fhsz106_1_map.I5.pdf>. Accessed: October
12, 2020.
9. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2019. California State Scenic Highway
Mapping System.
Available:<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm>.
Accessed: October 12, 2020.
10. CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines. April.
11. CSP (California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation). 2020. Available:
<ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=21423>. Accessed October 13, 2020.
12. CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for
Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
Available:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopfed_order
s/general-orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: September 14, 2018.
. Page 34 of 35
5:\Counter Operations\01_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive -VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_Mdoc
s
m
r
U �
ORIGINAL
13. DOC. 2019. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.
Available:<http://m aps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/inform ationwarehouse/>. Accessed:
January 25, 2019.
14. DOC. 2020.2020 California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
<htfps://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/>. Accessed: October 29, 2020.
15. DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2019. EnviroStor.
Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: October 27, 2020.
16. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:
Search By Address. Available:<https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresuIfsanchor>.
Accessed: January 28, 2019.
17. Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan.
Available:<http://www.kerncountyfire.org/images/stories/em erg ency_prepared ness/Dam_F
ailure_Plan_Dec_2009.pdf>. Accessed: January 28, 2019.
18. Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.
19. Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:<http://esps.kerndsc.com/floodplain-
management/lake-isobella-flood-area/>. Accessed: January 28, 2019.
20. Kern County Public Health Services. 2020. Medical Waste homepage. Available:
<htfps://kernpublichealth.com/medical-waste/>. Accessed October 12, 2020.
21. McCormick Biological (McCormick). 2020 Biological Evaluation for VA Community -Based
Outpatient Clinic, City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California, September 2020.
22. Ruettgers and Schuler Civil Engineers. 2020. Trip Generation Analysis for a Proposed BA [VA]
Community Based Outpatient Clinic Located on Knudsen Drive. Revised October 2, 2020.
23. SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dist(ct). 2015. Guide for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.
24. SSJVIC (Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center). 2020. Steven Doctor/Record
Search 20-243 - for Site Plan Review 20-0102. June 29.
25. Trinity Consultants. 2020. Small Project Analysis Level Assessment, SASD Medical Office
Building, Bakersfield, CA. Revised October 2020.
26. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1988. Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwest
Part. Available:
<hffps://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MAN USCRIPTS/california/CA666/0/kern.pdf>.
Accessed: October 26, 2020.
27. USDA WSS. 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available:
<hftps://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.cspx>. Accessed: October 19,
20209.
28. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). Areas of Land Subsubsidence in California.
<https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html>. Accessed:
October 19, 2020.
gAKF9�
Page 35 of 35 � o``
S:\Counter Operations\Ol_SPR\2020\20-0102_SEC Knudsen and Olive Drive VA Clinic\CEQA\IS_MND_20-0102 VA Clinic_KG.doc F- �
U O
ORIGINAL
Appendix A:
Site Plan Review Conditions of Approval
o11�AKF9`�'c�
ORIGINAL
CONDITIONS AND ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be
allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement
approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building
plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City's development
standards.
The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a
building permit is issued. As part of the building permit submittal, identify the location of your response by
using the APPLICANT'S RESPONSE line provided directly below the item (example: sheet number, detail, etc.).
A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(Staff contact - Oscar Fuentes; 661-326-3676 or 0Fuentes@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Prior to review of improvement plans by the City, the developer shall submit a grading plan for
the proposed site to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official
(Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.44.010). With the grading plan, if the project is subject
to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity (WQ Order No. 99-08-DWQ) must be filed with the State
Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity.
Compliance with the general permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection
during normal construction hours.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. A grading permit is required prior to final plan approval. The developer shall submit four (4)
copies of grading plans and two (2) copies of the preliminary soils report to the Building Division.
A final soils report shall also be submitted to the Building Division before they can issue a
building permit. Please note that grading plans must be consistent with the final building site
plans and landscaping plans. Building permits will not be issued until the grading permit is
approved by the Building Division, Planning Division (HCP), and Public Works Department.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
3. Show on the final building plan pedestrian access from the public way and accessible parking.
Private streets are not the public way.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
o``�AKF9s
F.. m
U �
Q
ORIGIN.At-
4. The developer shall include fire resistive wall construction details with the final building plans for
all exterior walls of any building that is within the distance as set forth in Table 602 of the
California Building Code.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
5. Include with or show on the final building plans information necessary to verify that the project
complies with all accessibility requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Code.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
6. The developer shall obtain all required approvals from the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department (2700 "M" Street, Bakersfield, CA., 93301; PH 661-862-8700) for any food
handling facility (i.e.: market, delicatessen, cafe, concession, restaurant) before building permits
can be issued.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
7. Buildings or structures shall require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system where
required by current California Building Code and City ordinance.
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
8. The Building Division will calculate and collect the appropriate school district impact fee at the
time they issue a building permit.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
9. Final Building plans shall show pedestrian access pathways or easements for persons with
disabilities from public rights -of -ways that connect to all accessible buildings, facilities,
elements, and spaces in accordance with the California Building Code. These pedestrian access
ways shall not be parallel to vehicular lanes unless separated by curbs or railings.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
10. Prior to granting occupancy, the Building Division will verify that a water meter serving the
development is in place. Therefore, it is recommended that the developer contact the
applicable water purveyor to inquire about their process for obtaining water service for the
development as soon as possible. To determine who the water purveyor for the development
is, you may contact the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department (1000 Buena Vista
Road, Bakersfield, CA, phone: 661-326-3715).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102
Page 12 of 17
ORiG!N.AI.
11. Show on the final building plan, electric vehicle supply equipment to facilitate future installation
as required by the California Green Code.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
12. An acoustical consultant, approved by the Building Division, shall be contacted to prepare and
include with the final building plans measure that mitigate noise exposures for all buildings on
the project site that are subject to noise levels of 65 db or greater as delineated by the CNEL
contour maps of the city. These implementation measures shall comply with the requirements
of Title 24 of the California Building Code.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
B. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue)
(Staff contact - Wayne Lawson; 661-326-3976 or WLawson@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. The minimum parking required for this project has been computed based on use and shall be as
fol lows:
Proposed Square Parking Required
Use Footage Ratio Parking
Medical clinic 39,648 SF 1 space/200 SF 198 spaces
Required Parking: 198 spaces
(Note: There are 214 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. By ordinance, compact and
tandem spaces cannot be counted towards meeting minimum parking requirements. For
commercial development containing a multi -tenant pad, any change in use where 50 percent or
more of the pad requires additional parking pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Section
17.58.110, the Planning Director may require parking commensurate with the new use.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. Minimum parking stall dimensions shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long and shall be designed
according to standards established by the Traffic Engineer. Vehicles may hang over landscape
areas no more than 2-1/2 feet provided required setbacks along street frontages are
maintained, and trees and shrubs are protected from vehicles.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
3. All parking lots, driveways, drive aisles, loading areas, and other vehicular access ways, shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, or other paved street surfacing material in accordance
with the Bakersfield Municipal Code (Sections 15.76.020 and 17.58.060.A.).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102
0 NK1�9
Q (.n
Page 13 of 17-� R,
r
U O
ORIGINAL
4. Lighting is required for all parking lots, except residential lots with four units or less (Section
17.58.060.A.). Illumination shall be evenly distributed across the parking area with light fixtures
designed and arranged so that light is directed downward and is reflected away from adjacent
properties and streets. Use of glare shields or baffles may be required for glare reduction or
control of back light. No light poles, standards and fixtures, including bases or pedestals, shall
exceed a height of 40 feet above grade. However, light standards placed less than 50 feet from
residentially zoned or designated property, or from existing residential development, shall not
exceed a height of 15 feet. The final building plans shall include a picture or diagram of the light
fixtures being used and show how light will be directed onto the parking area.
(Note: Staff can require additional adjustments to installed lighting after occupancy to resolve
glare or other lighting problems if they negatively affect adjacent properties.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
The developer shall include a copy of a final landscape plan with each set of the final building
plans submitted to the Building Division. Building permits will not be issued until the Planning
Division has approved the final landscape plan for consistency with approved site plans and
minimum ordinance standards. Please refer to the landscaping requirements in Chapter 17.61.
Landscape plans shall include, but are not limited to, data on: gallon/box size, spacing, species
(reference approved parking lot tree list), ratio of deciduous vs. evergreen, shade calculations,
ground cover calculations, etc.
(Note 1: At the time a final site inspection is conducted, it is expected that plants will match the
species identified and be installed in the locations consistent with the approved landscape plan.
Changes made without prior approval of the Planning staff may result in the removal and/or
relocation of installed plant materials and delays in obtaining building occupancy.)
(Note 2: No mature landscaping shall be removed without prior approval by the Planning
Director.)
(Note 3: Upon approval of the final landscape plan, a digital copy shall be submitted to the
Planning staff contact listed above.)
(Note 4: Redline comments are provided on AS101, L001, and L002.
(Note 5: Provide parking lot shade trees, street frontage trees, and frontage planter landscaping
in the manner spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance.)
APPLICANT'S RESPO
6. Our records show that the project is contained on more than one parcel. Because building
setbacks cannot be met based on the design layout, a parcel line bisects a building, and/or
parking for residential use is not on the same site as the project (Section 17.58.020.B. of the
SPR #20-0102
�AKF9
n
Page 14 of 15
m
r
U p
ORIGINAL
Bakersfield Municipal Code), a parcel merger or lot line adjustment application removing or
relocating property lines shall be submitted to the Planning Division before building permits can
be issued. Recordation of the map shall occur before final building or site occupancy can be
granted. If our records are in error, please provide a copy of the parcel map, subdivision map, or
certificate of compliance showing the approved property lines.
(Note 1: An Assessor's map is not acceptable since it is only for tax purposes and does not verify
legal parcel status.)
(Note 2: Contact either the Subdivision section of the Public Works Department or the Current
Planning Division of Planning to determine the type of land division application required to
resolve this matter.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
7. Evidence is required to determine that your parcel was legally created. Please provide a copy of
a parcel map, tract map, or certificate of compliance.
(Note 1: An Assessor's map is not acceptable since it is only for tax purposes and does not verify
legal parcel status.) If a map is not available, a copy of a deed that includes the parcel's current
legal description dated March 4, 1972, or earlier is acceptable; however, you may be required to
apply for a Certificate of Compliance before a building permit can be issued (please contact the
Public Works Department at 661-326-3566 regarding this application.)
APPLICANT'S RESPO
8. Business identification signs are neither considered nor approved under this review (e.g. wall,
monument, pylon, etc.). A separate sign permit reviewed by the Planning and Building Divisions
and issued by the Building Division, is required for all new signs, including future use and
construction signs.
(Note: Signs must comply with the Sign Ordinance; Chapter 17.60 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code. Review this Chapter as part of due diligence.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
9. The following conditions are required as part of a grading permit:
SPR #20-0102
a. Habitat Conservation fees shall be required for this project and will be calculated based
on the fee in effect at the time we issue an urban development permit (includes grading
plan approvals) as defined in the Implementation/Management Agreement (Section
2.21) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Upon payment of the
fee, the applicant will receive acknowledgment of compliance with Metropolitan
Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (Implementation/Management Agreement
gAKF9
o s�
Page 15 of It m
r
U O
ORIGINAL
SPR #20-0102
Section 3.1.4). This fee is currently $2,145 per gross acres, payable to the City of
Bakersfield (submit to the Planning Division). This fee must be paid before any grading
or other site disturbance occurs.
Forms and instructions are available at the Planning Division or on the city's web site at
https:Hbakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/community_development/ha bitat.htm.
The current MBHCP expires on February 28, 2022. To ensure take of covered species
does not occur after the expiration date, fees must be paid no later than August 31,
2021 and all covered activities must be completed by the MBHCP expiration date of
February 28, 2022. As determined by the City, only projects ready to be issued an urban
development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit will be eligible to pay
fees under the current MBHCP. 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. Urban development permits issued after the 2022 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 & Wildlife Service and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
b. Burrowing Owl Notification: 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 Fish and Game Code prohibit the taking, possession,
or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. To avoid violation of the 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.
C. Prior to ground disturbance, the developer shall have a California Department of Fish
and Wildlife approved MBHCP biologist survey the location for kit fox, and comply with
the provisions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Survey
protocol shall be recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Developer shall be subject to the mitigation measures recommended by the biologist.
Copies of the survey shall be provided to the Development Services Department,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to
ground disturbance.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
�gAKF9
o CI
Page 1 6 of 17 �_ m
U p
CRIGINA►
10. Refuse collection bin enclosures and container areas are subject to all required structural
setback from street frontages, and shall not reduce any parking, loading or landscaping areas as
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
11. In the event a previously undocumented oil/gas well is uncovered or discovered on the project,
the developer is responsible to contact the California Geologic Energy Management Division
(CaIGEM). The developer is responsible for any remedial operations on the well required by
CaIGEM. The developer shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080.B.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
(Note: A capped well is near Street "A". Prior to the approval of Public Works plans, the
applicant shall provide the location of the capped well to the Public Works Department and
resolve any adverse impacts to the public and site improvements.)
12. The developer shall meet all regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(Regulation VIII) concerning dust suppression during construction of the project. Methods
include, but are not limited to; use of water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants to control dust
emission from disturbed area, stock piles, and access ways; covering or wetting materials that
are transported off-site; limit construction -related speed to 15 mph on all unpaved
areas/washing of construction vehicles before they enter public streets to minimize
carryout/track out; and cease grading and earth moving during periods of high winds (20 mph or
more).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
13. Prior to receiving final building or site occupancy, you must contact the Planning Division (staff
contact noted above) for final inspection and approval of the landscaping, parking lot, lighting
and other related site improvements. Inspections will not be conducted until all required items
have been installed. Any deviations from the approved plans without prior approval from the
Planning Division may result in reconstruction and delays in obtaining a building or site
occupancy.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
14. All mitigation measures included in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for SPR No. 20-
0102 are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
o��AKF9
T
SPR #20-0102 Page 17 of 17 � R'
r
L)
CRIGINAL
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff contact - Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or EMedina@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Show on the final building plans the following items:
a. All fire lanes. Any modifications shall be approved by the Fire Department. Fire lane
identification signs shall be installed every 100 feet with red curbing when curbing is
required. All work shall be completed before occupancy of any building or portion of
any building is allowed.
b. All fire hydrants, both offsite (nearest to site) and on-site. Include flow data on all
hydrants. Hydrants shall be in good working condition and are subject to testing for
verification. Fire flow requirements must be met prior to construction commencing on
the project site. Please provide two (2) sets of the water plans stamped by a licensed
Registered Civil Engineer to the Fire Department and two (2) sets to the Water
Resources Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA. 93311; 661-326-3715).
(Note: Show: 1) distance to the nearest hydrant; and 2) distance from that hydrant to
the farthest point of the project site.)
C. All fire sprinkler and/or stand pipe systems, fire alarms and commercial hood systems.
These suppression systems require review and permits by the Fire Department. The Fire
Department will issue guidelines for these various items as they may apply to this
project.
d. Proiect address, including suite number if applicable. If the project is within a shopping
or business center, note the name and address of the center.
e. Name and phone number of the appropriate contact person.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. The developer must pay required fees to and request an inspection from the Water Resources
Department (1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA, phone: 661-326-3715) for any
underground sprinkler feeds at least 2 full business days before they are buried. The Prevention
Services Division (2101 H Street, Bakersfield CA, Ph. 661/326-3979) must complete all on-site
inspections of fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems before any building is occupied.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102 Page 18 of 17
�gP,K49
Loll
C__7
ORIGINAL
3. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be
installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
4. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire
department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt,
concrete or other driving surface approved by the fire chief. Must be capable of supporting the
imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced with the
first lift of asphalt as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. All access (Permanent and
temporary) to and around any building under construction must be a least 20 feet wide (26 feet
wide where building height exceeds 30 feet), with an overhead clearance of 13 feet 6 inches,
and contain no obstruction. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all
portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
5. Turning Radius: The minimum turning radius shall be thirty-seven feet.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
6. The developer shall submit two (2) sets of plans for permits and approvals from the Fire
Department for fuel tanks or related facilities before they are installed on the site. Please
contact the Prevention Services Division at 661-326-3979 for further information.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
7. If you handle hazardous materials or hazardous waste on the site, the Prevention Services
Division may require a hazardous material management and/or risk management plan before
you can begin operations. Please contact them at 661-326-3979 for further information.
APPLICANT'S RESPO
8. If you store hazardous materials on the site in either an underground or a permanent
aboveground storage tank, a permit from the Prevention Services Division is required to install
and operate these tanks. The Prevention Services Division may also require a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan for storage of petroleum products above ground in quantities
of 1,320 gallons or more. Please contact them at 661-326-3979 for further information.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102
Page 19 of 17 till
rrr
fen
Rr
�q��
9. All projects must comply with the current California Fire Code and current City of Bakersfield
Municipal Code.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
D. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road)
(Staff contact - Tylor Hester; 661-326-3715 or TH ester@ ba kersfieldcity. us)
1. Property is located outside of the City of Bakersfield domestic water service area, therefore, only
pipelines and appurtenances related to fire water are subject to review.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans signed by a California Registered Civil
Engineer to the Water Resources Department showing all offsite and onsite improvements,
including connections to the existing water main and underground fire waterlines and related
apparatuses. Include any existing nearby on or off-site hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be
submitted along with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current
fee schedule. Plans shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire
Code, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current
Fee Schedule are available for download from the City's website at
www.bakersfieIdcity.us/gov/depts/water—resources/fees.htm
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
3. Developer shall pay the required Water Resources Fire Service Inspection Fees and submit an
Inspection Request Form for any underground fire waterlines and their apparatuses at least two
(2) full business days before permanent construction. The form is available for download from
the City's website at www.bakersfieIdcity.us/gov/depts/water—resources/fees.htm
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
E. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING (1501 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or SKormendi@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. The developer shall construct curbs, gutters, cross gutters, sidewalks, and street/alley paving
along Knudsen Drive, Landco Drive, and Street A according to adopted city standards. These
improvements shall be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division
before any building permits will be issued.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. The developer shall install streetlights along Knudsen Drive, Landco Drive, and Street W. The
developer shall be responsible for providing the labor and materials necessary to energize all
61a111.1ple"I 1►
�Alf�
Page 1 10 of 17c
f-. m
U p
newly installed streetlights before occupancy of the building or site. These improvements shall
be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building
permits will be issued. Submit street light location plan to Public Works Department for street
light number.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
3. The developer shall construct standard accessible ramps at the northeast corner of Knudsen
Drive and Street 'A' and at the northwest corner of Landco Drive, and Street A according to
adopted city standards. These improvements shall be shown on the final building plans
submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
4. The developer shall install new connection(s) to the public sewer system. This connection shall
be shown on the final building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building
permits will be issued.
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
5. Show on the final building plans all existing connection(s) to the public sewer system.
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
6. All on-site areas required to be paved (i.e. parking lots, access drives, loading areas, etc.) shall
consist of concrete, asphaltic concrete (Type B. A. C.) or other paved street material approved by
the City Engineer. Pavement shall be a minimum thickness of 2 inches over 3 inches of approved
base material (i.e. Class II A. B.) if concrete is used, it shall be a minimum thickness of 4 inches
per Municipal Code Section 17.58.060.A. This paving standard shall be noted on the final
building plans submitted to the Building Division before any building permits will be issued.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
7. If a grading plan is required by the Building Division, building permits will not be issued until the
grading plan is approved by both the Public Works Department and the Building Division.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
8. All storm water generated on the project site, including the street frontage shall be retained
onsite unless otherwise allowed by the Public Works Department (please contact the Public
Works Department—Subdivisions at 661-326-3576).
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
�5AKF9
o s�
SPR #20-0102 Page 1 11 of 17�
U
ORIGINAL
9. If the project generates industrial waste, it shall be subject to the requirements of the Industrial
Waste Ordinance. An industrial waste permit must be obtained from the Public Works
Department before issuance of the building permit. To find out what type of waste is
considered industrial, please contact the Wastewater Treatment Superintendent at 661-326-
3249.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
10. Before any building or site can be occupied, the developer must reconstruct or repair
substandard off-site street improvements that front the site to adopted city standards as
directed by the City Engineer. Please call the Construction Superintendent at 661-326-3049 to
schedule a site inspection to find out what improvements may be required prior to submitting a
grading plan. Any off-site/frontage improvements or repairs required during the site inspection
shall be shown on the grading plan.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
11. A street permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained before any work can be
done within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this
site plan review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
12. A sewer connection fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. We will base this
fee at the rate in effect at the time a building permit is issued.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
13. If the project is subject to the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge
Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (SWRCB Order No. 2009-009-DWQ as
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) must be filed with the State
Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento before the beginning of any construction activity.
Compliance with the general permit required that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) be prepared, continuously carried out, and always be available for public inspection
during normal construction hours.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102
AKr9
Page 1 12 of 17
f'
U �.
ORIGIN -V
14. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, or if no building permit is required, the first
required City approval prior to construction, the developer/owner shall pay a Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) for regional facilities. This fee will be based on the rate in effect at the time the
applicable approval is issued or in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, as applicable. The
Public Works Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee upon submittal of
construction plans for the project.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
15. The developer shall form a new Maintenance District. Undeveloped parcels within an existing
Maintenance District are required to update Maintenance District documents. Updated
documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized. If
there are questions, contact Alerik Hoeh at 661-326-3576.
(Note: If already within a maintenance district, may need to update the maintenance district
form.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
16. The developer shall install a full-sized manhole in each sewer line except residential
development before it connects to the sewer main. This manhole is to be located within the
property being developed and must be easily accessible by City workers.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
17. This project may be located within a Planned Sewer Area. Please contact the Public Works
Department —Subdivisions at 661-326-3576 to determine what fees may apply.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
18. This project may be located within a Planned Drainage Area. Please contact the Public Works
Department — Subdivisions at 661-326-3576 to determine what fees may apply.
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
19. This project may be subject to Bridge and Major Thoroughfare fees. Please contact the Public
Works Department — Subdivisions at 661-326-3576 to determine what fees may apply.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102
-,AK
Page 1 13 of
F m
U p
ORIGINAL
F. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or SKormendi@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. Show on the final building plans 25 -foot to 42 -foot wide (top -to -top) drive approach(es). Drive
approaches must be centered on drive aisles. All dimensions shall be shown on the final building
plans.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. Street return type approaches, if used, shall have 20 -foot minimum radius returns with a 19 -ft to
36 -foot throat width. All dimensions shall be shown on the final building plans.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
3. Two-way drive aisles shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. If perpendicular (909) parking spaces
are proposed where a vehicle must back into these aisles, the minimum aisle width shall be 25
feet. All drive aisle dimension shall be shown on the final building plans.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
4. Show the typical parking stall dimension on the final building plans (minimum stall size is 9 feet x
18 feet and shall be designed according to standards established by the Traffic Engineer).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
5. The Bakersfield Municipal Code (Section 17.58.050.K.) prohibits vehicles from backing out of a
parking space into a street. Please revise the parking design on the final building plans to
eliminate these spaces.
(Note: This prohibition does not include single-family homes in residential zones, or multiple
family units on local streets where the Traffic Engineer has determined that backing onto a
street will not adversely affect traffic and is similar to a single family residential driveway use.)
APPLICANT'S RESPO
6. Walls, fences, or trash enclosures within 10 feet of a sidewalk at an alley or driveway shall not
exceed 3 feet in height above the curb flow line. You must either revise the circulation design or
show on the final building plans that the maximum fence/wall height will not exceed three feet.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
[.y�:�e3►��aili�iy�
44 11F9
Q_
sem,
Page 1 14 of b
CDP
ORIGINAL
G.
7. The developer shall dedicate additional road right-of-way to the City of Bakersfield along Landco
Drive and Street 'A' to full local street width according to adopted city standards with the
grading plan submittal.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
8. The developer shall dedicate any sidewalk extending out of the right of way to the City of
Bakersfield for the pedestrian way along all arterial streets. This must be conducted with a
separate instrument or final map.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
9. On Knudsen Drive, striping for left turn channelization shall be provided for any access leading to
a development which, at build out, generates more than 50 peak hour trips.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff Contact - Jesus Carrera; 661-326-3114 or jcarrera@bakersfieldcity.us)
1. You must contact the staff person noted above before building permits can be issued or work
begins on the property to establish the level and type of service necessary for the collection of
refuse and/or recycled materials. Collection locations must provide enough containment area
for the refuse that is generated without violating required zoning or setback restrictions (see
Planning Division conditions). Levels of service are based on how often collection occurs as
follows:
❑ Cart service -- 1 cubic yard/week or less 1 time per week
C�1 Front loader bin services -- 1 cubic yard/week - 12 cubic yards/day
8 Roll -off compactor service -- More than 12 cubic yards/day
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
2. Show on the final building plans refuse/recycle bin enclosures. Each enclosure shall be designed
according to adopted city standard (Detail # ST -27 and ST -28), at the size checked below Q.
Before occupancy of the building or site is allowed, 2, 3 -cubic yard front loading type
refuse/recycle bin(s) shall be placed within the required enclosure(s).
SPR #20-0102
❑ 6' deep x 8' wide (1 bin) ❑ 8' deep x 15' wide (3 bins)
❑ 8' deep x 10' wide (2 bins) ❑ 8' deep x 20' wide (4 bins)
Or 0 One, 8' deep x 10' wide (inside dimension); on skids for direct stab only (1-6 yard
recycling bin)
�gAKF9
Page 1 15 of 17
F. m
r
v o
ORIGINAI
(Note: All measurements above are curb -to -curb dimensions inside the enclosure. If both
refuse and recycling containers are to be combined in the same enclosure area, this area must
be expanded in size to accommodate multiple containers/bins - contact the staff person above
for the appropriate enclosure size.)
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
3. Examples of enclosure styles can be found on (Detail # ST -32).
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
4. Show on the final building plans one compactor roll -off bin location(s), designed according to
adopted City standards (Detail # ST -30 and ST -31). Please contact staff for additional
information on compactor requirements and placement.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
5. Facilities that require infectious waste services shall obtain approval for separate infectious
waste storage areas from the Kern County Health Department. In no instances shall the refuse
bin area be used for infectious waste containment purposes.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
6. Facilities that require grease containment must provide a storage location that is separate from
the refuse bin location. This shall be shown on the final building plans. If a grease interceptor is
to be used instead of a grease containment bin, the plans must still show the location of an
adequately sized enclosure should a grease containment bin be required at a future date. The
grease containment bin shall not share the same enclosure as the refuse/recyclable/organic bin
enclosure.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
7. Facilities with existing refuse service must improve the service location area(s) according to
adopted City standards (Detail # ST -27 and ST -28). These improvements shall be clearly shown
on the final building plans.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
8. If utilities are incorporated into the enclosure design, they shall not interfere with space
provided for refuse bins and must provide sufficient protection measures to guard the utilities
from damage.
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
SPR #20-0102
NKFq
Page 1 16 of C-PrI
rnr-
0
U O
ORIGINAL
Enclosures shall not be located in an area that would cause refuse trucks to interfere with drive
thru traffic flow entering or exiting the site, drive thru lanes, etc.
APPLICANT'S RESPONS
10. Businesses are required to have sufficient capacity of refuse/recycling/organic material storage
to go without service for 1 day (Sunday). At any time refuse/recycling/organic services become
an issue, businesses shall construct a second refuse enclosure to meet the demand. The second
enclosure shall be approved by the City prior to construction.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
11. Revise the site plan to make the trash enclosure accessible to the refuse truck. City trucks may
not drive down dead-end corridors, nor back-up long distances; therefore, a turn -around area
shall be provided.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE:
SPR #20-0102 Page
s
17 of 1-7 R,
� r
v O
ORIGINAL
Appendix B:
Project Site Plans and Renderings
o``gAKF9�
~" r
U O
ORIGINAL
tl
PROJECT TEAM
i VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION
` .. • ..I, of rtJr l.0.1 q,IrbSS. MSNs•
�,U..H34'S :IMGs YJODnO.
MSCI. .v IIlr 41CM •S
• f�
s
THE PROPOSED
VA BAKERSFIELD COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC
VA GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
INITIAL OFFER
�'------ — --- --+— CONSULTANTS. DEVELOPER: ARCHIT_CTENGINEERS
p' Ci T y
STAMP""Z
- _ Office of COVER SHEET
and Fackes
ManagementVA
+�-a
SHEETINDEX
r vsll.11 [vC.Tw.M RM
r9 •IIfMlCOI3/11YL SI11 Hlw YR11MA.
Y -J AM'S•�•KN�rSIs
Yat Rlaa'y'u r\Otr.14r 4rfwa M
YRJ 'IOY.r �•Yit.
Y S"f mr
�OJC
a[JI• rr.CNLa1YJf.0 a1q •O,Jr.lfull.,"Syarpra
.[J/J r•faJLL[rtIR36 RMS.IT MI,nOrrifa.4•.
� M'•C •.YI1 Aro Mr, Pnaa.rvarbA
Yirf a[p
YrM SYa:-f 1.S S.rrM.
• R.l�f a7i.s
Ym Cr{S<r Ai MY'SL
YYJ aflrarrgf Mt.
ILGYffih
ah fJ J•:wr.Y YJ.►.'YJ1.V
PROJECT DATA
.,Cl.Wi(L ..
Q„uJ•., Jsi.,einra 4Qn�.J ••lf M•SM<•[In i.,•Jou. I
rorx nfru �
c,..ac•u.i.R .w. n n...or. m.u.•Mu J.f.�.rn
wauco Mia -,Y, - _-
r..
~VA BAKERSFFID Mr.
W:TULL OFFER
QTY BASED wcy.w�wm
F
.-..o.-
OUiPATENTCLNIC
FULLY
SPRINKLERED
r ` GI000
a f
(3 ii(iil�i7((il Illi` !.� lji(E (j!!is ifPleH1 Zt
1 11 lH Fx P�Q, �1 1 fJ ijl 1 t
Linla:iiQl."::ieirii:L:E>?(eQQ!1 ....rr1eli:___.
9
. �dt
v� 'J
z
f
f i i !
a ( ' a i r
FM
j � � I�r� �iPi �j� a ji j +E Sj Q � ; E` ie . g ii o jt� 8 a�ii t � % R3�f 3 �
i1I1tl1111H.l4i 4ilfrlll113 t1 41�tE�lEi; i ��16�;�;I�II!1QP1Q1i191Q1r1 !� 11:1, 1,1111 111alifl,"1il1 iiiiIllln
S
w
_ m
m
!11
F s}i i ill lP QI i Esiljell iQri oil
i 1
4 jt itl
iQglft r: 9i PPpI i�iQ s "i = j j Q
�ifsiQ.+4�iPilp�ji:iii �iSllfalii QLif: (!31!i sig �(j71.ifii� f6iili vi
91sj5_:!!!:ji ..'`I:i:._...'e:.j:je....:ri:Pc£iPaii:;4.,:8:s11t .:ijj:Q:eFi: .,7Q, 1•.... lia:;..1•-� iii:i: y
z
0
u
BjtSi i :�(iii�ti471i�1(:�1 i{t��i,lLiitl�lll(�: Tf 7.!�(l184lcl61}.iaP�iP(ai17 fje��le�1114lQi��f !lig 77�t
:i: 7: 31::1Qis!:ii:lii•S ,�r:IjLr:..:l:it{:' t: _ae'- .-.... ..1lXF[i-.,'.. tii::iilll:;Ist::i ... 99!: � � A KF9
ORIGINAL
� r
En
P
e S
44 i3 Is
i
4j.
!ii
a f
(3 ii(iil�i7((il Illi` !.� lji(E (j!!is ifPleH1 Zt
1 11 lH Fx P�Q, �1 1 fJ ijl 1 t
Linla:iiQl."::ieirii:L:E>?(eQQ!1 ....rr1eli:___.
9
. �dt
v� 'J
z
f
f i i !
a ( ' a i r
FM
j � � I�r� �iPi �j� a ji j +E Sj Q � ; E` ie . g ii o jt� 8 a�ii t � % R3�f 3 �
i1I1tl1111H.l4i 4ilfrlll113 t1 41�tE�lEi; i ��16�;�;I�II!1QP1Q1i191Q1r1 !� 11:1, 1,1111 111alifl,"1il1 iiiiIllln
S
w
_ m
m
!11
F s}i i ill lP QI i Esiljell iQri oil
i 1
4 jt itl
iQglft r: 9i PPpI i�iQ s "i = j j Q
�ifsiQ.+4�iPilp�ji:iii �iSllfalii QLif: (!31!i sig �(j71.ifii� f6iili vi
91sj5_:!!!:ji ..'`I:i:._...'e:.j:je....:ri:Pc£iPaii:;4.,:8:s11t .:ijj:Q:eFi: .,7Q, 1•.... lia:;..1•-� iii:i: y
z
0
u
BjtSi i :�(iii�ti471i�1(:�1 i{t��i,lLiitl�lll(�: Tf 7.!�(l184lcl61}.iaP�iP(ai17 fje��le�1114lQi��f !lig 77�t
:i: 7: 31::1Qis!:ii:lii•S ,�r:IjLr:..:l:it{:' t: _ae'- .-.... ..1lXF[i-.,'.. tii::iilll:;Ist::i ... 99!: � � A KF9
ORIGINAL
R
_ I j I�gAK�c9�
ORIG!N4L
t
1
t
t
a
t
t -
i
t
i-
1
t
t
f INTERIOR RENDERING AT PACT
• �a
1t
!i
jy.
9
-- -- CONSULTANTS:
` ee
- 013135a
INTERIOR RENDERING AT LOBBY
`•^9iif i
L.
It. t _J
Ns -
INTERIOR RENDERING ABOVE L088Y
Of ARCHITECTIENGINEERS STAMP Office of INTERIOR RENDERINGS INTIALOFFER �OWUNTY BASED ti n
. :.. •.' L:'IStfd t e OUTPATIENT CLN:w n
IC
a'n Faal t es .u. •a• ca.w,.cno+
w u ••a: FUMY .»srr•+w.r�a.+
`+*rya : — .�.� _ VA i:...ue. l SPRINKLERED �... R. ;� G1301
4
r � oc.e�rsew
i
W
'o
(,+) BLDG
1
— 4- _ _- t-- CONSULTANTS DEVELER: ARCHITECTIENGINEERS _ STAMP
OP
A
013\�5a'/
OfficedLD
CONCEPTUAL
ERSFIEE
C0InWCbW GRADING P:AN
IN OFFER
C"AIVUMTY
o s.c,r.s•.a.n
and FaD*bm
sm.e•car.yns
OUTPATIENT CLMW
FUILV
'
SPRI14KLFRED�
now cool
•
9 .a
:r. -
0
b `
r
IN) BLDG
IL
:
� - rI3Y ---- ASIREE�—` • ,�"s, .e u..: o..n arvrs
-CONSULTANTS: .DEVELOPER ARCHITECT ENGINEERS
� D
7
0131
STAMP O(fce0r • CCNC CCNCEP'L'AL
CMStruCtvin UTILITY PLAY
IN TIAL OFFER
COVA MMUNITY
CDMMUN1IY BASED
and Fac, :t*sra.I
cwrw+ne.
OUTPATIENT CLINIC
Management 4--
-
FULLY
...rar nwrn�a.n o+ve .
C002
SPRINKIERED—�—~
I-
LLI
LLJ
LLI
MAIN
ENTRANCE
I
I
IT Y
0130�
10
SECOND Ry
ENTRANCE EXIT
PATIENT &
PUBLIC PARKING
D,
4 4*
fr. J? Heal ng Garden
qv 17,
STAFF
ENTRANCE
Proposed Building
cj.
STAFF PARKING
STAFF 5 SERVICE
ENTRANCE
STREET 'A'
CONSULTANTS DEVELOPER ARCH1TK^T.ENGINEERS ST
McW LarwJ*r ASIA
SAW uwwc, an
I
HEALING - GARDEN PLAN -
PLANTING KEY
0
ME'.i SrpYet
LANDSCAPE PLAN
AMP Ofte of'—'"VA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE
INITIAL OFFER
BAXERSFJELD
Custru"bon PLAN
COMMUNITY BASED
and FacIlbes
CLITPA—IENT CLINIC
Management
FULLY
VA 'I
SPRINKLERED
L001
I ,
scwff we ren ww&ft
4 sa.•. raw a..cr.w. ......... tr•w •www«
wrw'Y.•'�r'JS+.Ona�t t•wa,R•wir4>�
•:w w• :a.••trw w.w...c+ •s•wn
w... n.a.a.�.a,. t awa•r w•a
. ... -- s..w u+•«t u....._•o.wy.r. r«.ww.ww.•r.y.a
- - - .mow a•._.a.•.. ttrJl •-.� w
*..._ ._ra. .r_•w w. wn.r. w.•:v�rwtrw.ws.r. �
w'n.nr.+••..at.ww•.w wr ws'w,rwl.tw+r.••
I
l 4 IRRIGATION ZONES
u.dw.•, vv>r„ _w-d�ic .•.tsar.,
STAFF PARgNO f _
rw
STAFF d SERVICE
9 ENTRANCE STREET'A' IRRIGATION PLAN
f CONSULTANTS! DEVELOPER: ARCHITECTINGINEERSSTAMP Off,ce 01 CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION `'A BAKERSFIEIU '�•�
1 -- - — AITIAI OFFER
CorsINCtion PLAN COMMUNITY BASED
NllclwlLJwda ASLAand aa.snww
�. .., „. , , ; .•,• .. g
OUTPATIENT C. NC
-ii• ,.... mcv oast o.n
Management '^•'J u—.iu.
i i7 1 uFao.c a tm FULLY
— a •— SASp vc mm anumw r.. x a L002
!i ► __ _ D t maw uG VA SPRINKLEREU
� y
'�` 013\�'a
SECONDARY
I
ENTRANCE: EXJT
LLJ
LLJ
PATIENT 6
NPUBLIC
PARK'.N,
LU
U)
Z
O
Heating Garden
m
MAIN
ENTRANCE
STAFF
ENTRANCE
Proposed Building ,
a
scwff we ren ww&ft
4 sa.•. raw a..cr.w. ......... tr•w •www«
wrw'Y.•'�r'JS+.Ona�t t•wa,R•wir4>�
•:w w• :a.••trw w.w...c+ •s•wn
w... n.a.a.�.a,. t awa•r w•a
. ... -- s..w u+•«t u....._•o.wy.r. r«.ww.ww.•r.y.a
- - - .mow a•._.a.•.. ttrJl •-.� w
*..._ ._ra. .r_•w w. wn.r. w.•:v�rwtrw.ws.r. �
w'n.nr.+••..at.ww•.w wr ws'w,rwl.tw+r.••
I
l 4 IRRIGATION ZONES
u.dw.•, vv>r„ _w-d�ic .•.tsar.,
STAFF PARgNO f _
rw
STAFF d SERVICE
9 ENTRANCE STREET'A' IRRIGATION PLAN
f CONSULTANTS! DEVELOPER: ARCHITECTINGINEERSSTAMP Off,ce 01 CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION `'A BAKERSFIEIU '�•�
1 -- - — AITIAI OFFER
CorsINCtion PLAN COMMUNITY BASED
NllclwlLJwda ASLAand aa.snww
�. .., „. , , ; .•,• .. g
OUTPATIENT C. NC
-ii• ,.... mcv oast o.n
Management '^•'J u—.iu.
i i7 1 uFao.c a tm FULLY
— a •— SASp vc mm anumw r.. x a L002
!i ► __ _ D t maw uG VA SPRINKLEREU
� y
'�` 013\�'a
i
S
.TR
~ 4 .',ECC I.n, Ry
PA EIT
LLI
LLJ
co
j t Lu
c/) v
PARJUNO CALCULATIONS SHEET NOTES
n1, Y,� J• r f r .. •.r r ,< ,.
ffflttlu.M,fi Jf.r T •e -T rr f rl • t .r Y S � t -j�1 i <n.r<u
r r r I • .>w_o.. �...
VA—
Cl
Y l 1 0
lam
i.... .3 . �' AW
UA 41,
VACOMMMUNFY43ASED \ • 1
r- • OUTPATIENT CLINK
70.100 V" NUSF
1�_ ��• • � \�� 1 �'� 1 a. ter:...., ._-
LEGEND
PROJECT APPROACH
,_ :.
? 1 STAFF A SERVICE �•-s.�•-�• R �• .► .<. +.v++.
1 ENTRANCE •�•�•
:1 STREET'A' SITE PLAN --_-
(• -- CONSULTANTS: DEVELOPER: ARCHITECTIENGINEERS. STAMP Office of OVERALL CONCEPTUAL SITE w.. F'VA —ERSFIELD
_�. Co'151JLC110(� PLAN R1�.T,AL OFFER COMMUNITY BASED afewf•ff<m
aid Faaldes me ro.corrflwuc+rur OUTPATIE'J' CLOW
G 1 0
a.+a aa.. ow c lana a rent I.. 0A.�.
IJ f't ve, JffiJaiarAf FULLY �~ 1 1
ii 2 ± 1 `� — ""- - o<wo.� �t ► ^ - VA H.,. SPR NKLERED ,.... nz ... S 0
r 013\�'-
I ENTRANCE
111 • i • M1�
VACOMMMUNITY�A.SE o '
OUTPATIENT CLINIC
30,100 MAX NUSF w ;
\% 1
CONSULTANTS.
I
PROJECT APPROACH
PARIWG ULATRW
,,'a.` '
,„� :�::Q ter?, • 1 •
,, , _: .1
SHEET NOTES
«...I VT =!"I -
LEGEND LEGEND
STREET IN
p SITE
DEVELOPER ARCHITECTIENGINEERS
STAMP Office of OVERALL CONCEPTUAL SITE r..
�VABN(ERSFIELD •��
CFacC40f'. PIAN-ALTERNATIVE
andFaddes
IN OFFER COUNRV BASED rc•�,nwrr
W
.o.rwcow.nex+,ou OUTPATIENT CLINIC
...o .as.o..
Management
�-+r-
v y>�i��Lnsu..n.u
FULLY--_
AS102
ow�..�+
orAC
..,
-.-s`
SPRINKLEREO W..__
IVN19180
MENTAL HEALTH
oil [I
-oil I
AMBULATORY CARE
11111
'u, Lit
EYE CLINIC
rr
J, Atli[
AUDIOLOGY
AL
Eli PMR PROSTHETICS
8 ; ,1u , 71.a1
47
DENTAL
et
Up
1!
11,
11A E 00
4
40
MENTAL HEALTH
STAFF
ENTRANCE 7r7c
z
IL
W
0
FI
Y
ej
CElt
w
6At--
ui
__LUJ�.
HBPC
YEJ 3
c- 45
S AF1
C"TRAI.CF
A-VP;CK UgU-ANCE.t
P
CONSULTANTS DBELOPER ARCHITECTENGINEERS
0
:0
z
(7130sll�
13
STAMP OffiCe Of DEPARTMENTAL FLOOR PLAN
IN TLAL OFFER
DEPARTMENTLEGEND,
GeV
��VA—ERSFELD
COMMUN TY BASED
OUTPATIENTCLW
'.lanag~
FULLY
SPR NKLERED
r=_ "% AE102
HEALTH
ENTRANCE
PACT I
PACT 2X-
7q.
7L1
CANTCANTEENTRANCE
:E
c
STAMP OffiCe Of DEPARTMENTAL FLOOR PLAN
IN TLAL OFFER
GeV
��VA—ERSFELD
COMMUN TY BASED
OUTPATIENTCLW
'.lanag~
FULLY
SPR NKLERED
r=_ "% AE102
HEALTH
ENTRANCE
PACT I
PACT 2X-
0
uj
x
:E
c
7,-
r—r"
KEY PLAN
�147
A B
STAMP OffiCe Of DEPARTMENTAL FLOOR PLAN
IN TLAL OFFER
--islrLCbW -ALTERNATIVE
ail Facd(t*s
��VA—ERSFELD
COMMUN TY BASED
OUTPATIENTCLW
'.lanag~
FULLY
SPR NKLERED
r=_ "% AE102
- -- -
GROSS BUILDING AREA
it �unrt.a�..�vn.vw
i,�, • � a.w wawc at.
wsarcums
;
r 1
!y
• !s
!!
i
--------- - CONSULTANTS.
i
O 0TY
Z �
oi3\y
DEVELOPER:
ARCHITECTIENGINEERS STAMP
KEY PLAN
I A B
_ C D
GROSS BUILDING AREA ..�
Office O!RG OSS BUILDING AREAw.. ;rrTU� GFFER ~ VA BAXERSFIELD
Consaucbor CC1WUNITYBASED ncw�w�nr
and Fac*tes OUTPATIENT CLINIC
.,...w r.rrr.
Management
FULLY
W1"„ �', SPRINKLERED r,,.,,c, I ` AE103
,, a,.
ORIGWIkL
t RORT!1 ELEVATIOM•ENARGED EMTRYIMTMOUT DWa-OFF CNW"
.u.+.oR, rra�, ou•oao,
•. MM.. YfA
dti
YM, .!..tnL!tC[ i
...e�+!o,!.w•..o�«,•xe...+..
YY(R ! .'.tK u[+._q.r f.V � t.1'.M! •
.INUl..1II•.R.
i.Y OA M r..- 4.t!N•W wm,RK! .,,t�.41�'YwiM.
Z igRIN BiYAll0,1 wIN MiNT0110►�gFCA1�/
.Y..!D faiK.•{.•A
I
i
v
---- - CONSULTANTS:
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECTIENGINEERS
STAMPClfceof a BUILDING
I
ti �"`VAEANERSFIELD NN_
C
CD ructoos
4Facidf'
.mfaINtacLLunFFnnic..wR
\MINI rc,r..rwn
,, COTV EASED
OUTPATIENT CLINIC
_
_.
Managermt •-�
sci arc .uu.0
rr rte.
FULLY ...wr..w..•o..o..r
AE3W
."' .........
rs ,...+.•a
r— W7;.tx.!.s ars.,
SPR NKLERE� w .r .w oe r...
O C!py
.sxta...�..... ±rs15Y i, �. �w.u.5.!RY w�'«sw n..:al S.s.[vw•+w. w+o...w..
1(r/l..ti. 4YR.11YT\RY t r Y 4.•W tinYa...r.. •.til
H �TEIfYAl10N tiro.a. a.a•w
a.awon,aa,a rwa•. on..n.onsooa w.w,....� .-uw.v.•
.w. •ruacx.use w,w.. a .�Y
cl l0111M iItYATOM
..pc.....o.� ,..•ans.r a.,.,,oa . wraw. rY.
IY.a[1 MMY..M.
uv•
t
\V �
a
arwJvf
Yt. �
►.PnYQ1
� P
f fl s9�BlMl{ON
,FMMb/I!.>4•t
.r 1.11.Or\Os 'ti_.A'rlr .re\~
tiM� t 1!M
O°"'
CONSULTANTS.
DEVELOPER
ARCH TE7.rENIGWEERS STAMPf
BUILDING ELEVATIONS ...
M
CorvsM)d
and FacMn
;.{ TtA. OFFER c�otiw xi aisO ..t ........,
OUTPATIENT CLINIC
AF40tttDaVamanapffwd
/�-
• v. m n°'t°. ^..t,,.,A.
FULLY
AE301
ar\�a+w ie
v
SPR NKLERED
'A m
Appendix C:
Project Maps
ORIGML
SPR 20-0102r
E
f �
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD"
fil
Y R ►� `
� �o ��� .• �� _ 1 J -r.l.z �� �F�
a— Nil
ZI
W V 307
Ij
a
a
N ` v
_�
FEMBRU Ar -s ,.. �'JI ��.� ' '�' �. `11 .illy f••i.. 2rr�. 1=�._- I.
AVE y -- PEMBRU0.E AVE d � "'^• � ,.I
"•13E: „[911�r �li�'1� it
at
1
AL UP fYyVV. R IJ
"Ur �lwljum
BROORDALE AVEAlt
'�,J� J/ 1
_CITY, LIMIT 1
MORAGA!(i
W oillfi��9
If-MML in CXC3kL0MBARDY,(TC¢, ,� " - BASILI(ATAIDR
F 40-3
Iia€ iil yL. + ��.W�81� ►!.J .
�ROS(OMARE ST g
W RIPI, ,
Will-
�1' i� _vENEru sl, rF�$, +.tf ', ♦_ �pN�'
i'��5► , r
WARE110CT_0_,_
IlM7".110-1111r,
va�ESF
VIA'MARISOtT51������Y� �
ARBDNN 2l.-11 SARDINIA DR
+ r' vir
� V4 .0DR0,W'AV[e
VASHINGTON AVE -af
M77 -
Art
77-
Ol'IVE�D,R
4
AERIAL
d Oft
� �9a
4
w
BAKERSFIELD
�► Feet
rj ,ATLAS,(T 0 300 600
rf'Plipp'! Document Nemo: 20201110m
Land Use
SPR 20-0102
1 ` I
• LMR T� W WOODROWAYE RESIDENTIAL
`��PEF" ♦I� , LMR LMR SR-Suburban Residential:
5 4 dwelling units/net
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD �� a acre
WASHINGTON AVE
LMR- Low Medium Density
�� GC LMR 5i LMR Residential: > A units but
Y N o ♦Ij S 10 dwelling unils/net
Z
i LR o ♦��qf �OB�q ARTHUR AVE acre
GC z ✓yam �� LMR = HMR - High Medium
sidential: >
SR x �, N �.loc LMR LMR Density e26unisbut :917.42
dwelling units/net acre
GC GC
LR -Low Density
sl SEATE RD ! Residential: 5 7.26
LM dwelling units net acre
COMMERCIAL
OLIVE DR''•��� OLIVE DR - GC- General Commercial
SR SR ■ HC 1 ��'♦� .■- HC- Highway Commercial
SR SIR T!�-'--T`-'I GC HC 1 SI INDUSTRIAL
PEMBROKE PEMBROKE AVE ; _- LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
AVE , HANK RO
SR SR .. _I i �\ 1�♦ SI -Service Industrial
CHERRY '�� HI - Heavy Industrial
GLEN
CT SR SR SR �O® sl PUBLIC FACILITIES
SR 9 J P ! 1 �� P- Public Facilities
0 1 � ,
S P b Schools
u tvate
SI �
P - Iii Pr'
QrF
BRDOKDALE AVE - _ —' � 1 9�
,
J
LR I I I( I I I I c R
-` Moencn (T o SPR 20-0102 � sI �
I PS Y i
LR
WLR 1 I.
IOMBARDY (T IASIII[ATA DR •
1
11--- NAREST LR �1
SICILY CT BENEVENTO CT !! LR
z _ _
- 0 1 �✓
- G o BAKERSFIELD
LR VENETO ST
LUCCA CITY•LIMIT••� j
(1
LR ', LR Feet
sl HI
AREZZOCT A ESE HI
VIA MARISOL ST a►ao I; ATLAS(1 0 300 600
ENf
I DtI LR SARDINIA DR j L"„""
oo umem Name zozo n laza
SPR 20-0102
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
a
OLIVE DR
E �
E
;OKE a PEMBROKE AVE��
0AVF�
CHERRY
GLEN Q=
_ W W
JI
i
SPR 20-0102
1
0",
1
t 11 111
Zoning
., 111'1
Designations
Commercial
1111111111 1111(-2
���,� �1111111111�1111Industrial
Zone Designations
�'�1111111 1�1�M-1
Light Manufacturing
M-2 General Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
tersiturce Zone Designations
A Agricultural
Residential Zone Designations
��.
—
E [slat. One Family Dwallist;
I i
E -.5A Estate One family
Dwelling - .5 acre minimum
R -S Residential SuburbanDwelling
R-1 One Family
R-3 Li mited Mu "ipla Family
Dwelling Zone - I unit/1,250
?p
1
doft
1 W
BAKERSFIELD
i
ti—..—. ..—CITY LIMIT ••—.. ..—.. ..—..—.
Feet
M 3 M_3
61-3 I I
0 300 600
pocuaia�a Nance 1070 11 10_c