Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 188-2022RESOLUTION NO. 18 .8 — 2 ® 2 2 RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPT SECTION 15091 FINDINGS AND SECTION 15093 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOSKING AVENUE AND SOUTH H STREET (GPA/ZC NO.21-0184; VTPM 12438; SPR 21-0185). WHEREAS, Majestic Realty Company filed applications with the City of Bakersfield for (a) an amendment to the land use map of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan by changing the land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Light Industrial (LI) on 56.86 gross acres; (b) an amendment to the official zoning map in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the zone classification from Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development Combining (C-2/PCD) to Light Manufacturing (M-1) on 56.86 gross acres and from C-2/PCD to Exclusive Planned Commercial Development (PCD) on 33.73 gross acres; (c) a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 90.59 gross acres into 17 parcels and dedicate right-of-way for required improvements; and (d) a Site Plan Review for development of a 1,012,185 square foot warehouse distribution building on 52.28 net acres, generally located at the northwest corner of Hosking Avenue and South H Street (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined the Project would have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for a public review period from July 15 to August 29, 2022 in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6, 2022 where individuals provided testimony in support and opposition, and approved Resolution No. 100-22, which recommended that the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report for the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, November 2, 2022 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 proposed Negative Declaration as required by Government Code Section 65355, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and Page 1 of 3 o�PK��s n UORIGINAL the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was opened and closed and subsequently the Project was continued at the request of the Applicant to November 16, 2022 in order to allow the Applicant to respond to additional comments received; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission's deliberation, and action. WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing. 2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project under CEQA and an initial study was completed. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and properly noticed for public review. 3. An Environmental Impact Report for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with CEQA, the Lead Agency prepared an Environmental Impact Report, and mitigation measures were identified and have been incorporated into the Project. 4. Based on the analysis presented in the Environmental Impact Report, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation (vehicle miles traveled). WHEREAS, the "Mitigation Measures, Monitoring and Reporting Program," attached as Exhibit "A," is incorporated into the Project; and WHEREAS, the "Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings, and Mitigation Measures," and the "Statement of Overriding Considerations", attached as Exhibit "B," are appropriate and incorporated into the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Environmental Impact Report is hereby certified by the City Council. $NKF?� Page 2 of 3 y ire 'ORIGINAL 3. The Project is subject to mitigation, monitoring and reporting program found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit C, both of which are incorporated herein. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations pertaining to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation (vehicle miles traveled) is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. --------- 000-------- HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the NOV 16 2022of November 2022, by the following vote: (1j COUNCILMEMBER: Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Freeman, Gray, Parlier NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: NOV 16 2022 A. KAREN GOH MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield VIRGINIA GENNA City Attorney KI Deputy City Attorney 4a . " i J IE DRIMAKIS,MMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Exhibits: A: Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program B: Section 15091 Statement of Facts, Findings and Mitigation Measures Section 15093 Statement of Overriding Considerations C: Location Map Page 3 of 3 c!' � r OORIGINAL® Exhibit A: MMRP Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) -',SRO 12�g x , y , vsz, ; 45)CGN,FEtkTURES fr` ' F AND, "A E,. _.. .' REsrONSLBIE' .. MONITORING.Xt MI'I E_MENTATION L F' CL►IViP'IIiANCE WovT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY', STAGE STATUSNOTES () 4.1 Aesthetics AES DF-1: Prior to the approval of building permits and other permits and approvals that authorize Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of construction, the City of Bakersfield shall review the construction documents and plans to assure the its designee building permits and other following: permits and approvals a) All building paint colors shall have a matte finish. b) All building glass shall be anti -glare or anti -reflective. c) Any photovoltaic panels installed on the property or on building roofs shall be anti -glare or anti - reflective. d) All lighting fixtures shall comply with applicable City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Requirements pertaining to lighting and illumination of buildings, parking areas, and signs. e) The warehouse building truck courts shall be composed of concrete. f) All loading dock areas of the warehouse building shall be screened by a solid perimeter wall on all sides. Any gates visible from a public street shall be of an opaque design. g) All landscaping shall be installed to comply with all applicable City of Bakersfield Municipal Code standards pertaining to perimeter landscaping and minimum shade cover. 4.2 Air Quality AIR MM-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall enter into a Project Applicant SJVAPCD Prior to the issuance of Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD. The VERA is an air quality occupancy permits mitigation measure by which a developer can voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with the SJVAPCD to mitigate a development project's impact on air quality. Under the agreement, the developer provides funds to the SJVAPCD to administer the implementation of the VERA. The SJVAPCD then identifies emissions reductions projects, funds those projects, and verifies that the specified emission reductions have been successfully achieved. The SJVAPCD considers implementation of a VERA to be a feasible mitigation measure under CEQA, effectively achieving emission reductions necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The VERA requirements shall include specific terms to reduce the Project's criteria air pollutant emissions to net zero, consistent with the assumptions that were relied upon in the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis to conclude that Project emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less than significant with mitigation. AIR MM-2: The Project's construction contractors shall provide training and personal protective Project Construction City of Bakersfield or Prior to, and during respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel Contractors its designee construction activities o01TY (4ad Agency: i7 v z v rO131��' City of Bakersfield Page 1 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) ` DESIGN FEATURES (DF)AND RESPONSIBLE. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORYREQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY .STAGE' STATUS NOTES E `) = `E and visitors to the construction site about Valley Fever. Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to provide the training and protective gear, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires these items is required on all grading plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. AIR MM-2A: To minimize personnel and public exposure to dust potentially containing Valley Project Construction City of Bakersfield or Prior to, and during Fever, a dust control plan shall be prepared by the grading contractor and shall be approved by the Contractors its designee construction activities City of Bakersfield prior to the commencement of grading. The plan shall include at minimum the following requirements: o Construction equipment, vehicles, and other items shall be thoroughly cleaned of dust before they are moved off -site to other work locations. o Wherever possible, grading and trenching work shall be phased so that earth -moving equipment is working well ahead or down -wind of workers on the ground. o The area immediately behind grading or trenching equipment shall be sprayed with water before ground workers move into the area. o All heavy-duty earth -moving vehicles shall be closed -cab and equipped with a HEPA- filtered air system. AIR MM-3: Construction equipment staging areas for equipment over 150 horsepower shall be not Project Construction City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of grading be located within 1,000 feet of South H Street. The construction equipment staging area location(s) Contractors its designee permits and building shall be shown on all grading plans and building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. permits AIR RR-4: During construction, all construction contractors shall be subject to compliance with Project Construction SJVAPCD During Project construction SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), including the following requirements. Contractors activities Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to comply with SJVAPCD Regulation VII, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires these items is required on all grading plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. a) Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. b) Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. c) Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. d) Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. oC'gy Op ead Agency: City of Bakersfield 9 -y G) Page 2 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) - - ° MITIGATION MEASiJRiS (VIM) _ e DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD = REGULATORY'REQUIREMENTS PARTY 'PARTY STAGE ; STATI)S TOTES �. :. .): e) Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. f) Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. g) When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. h) Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). i) Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. j) Remove visible track -out from the site at the end of each workday. k) Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one -hour period). AIR RR-5: Construction contractors and painters shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Project Construction SJVAPCD During Project construction Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Contractors activities Construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to comply with Rule 4601, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires compliance is required on all building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. AIR RR-6: All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or During Project construction Code to minimize total consumption of energy. The City of Bakersfield shall confirm Title 24 Construction Contractors its designee activities compliance prior to the issuance of building permits. AIR RR-7: Construction contractors shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 Project Construction SJVAPCD During Project construction during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas. Construction contractors shall Contractors activities be required by their contracts to comply with Rule 4641, and the City of Bakersfield shall confirm Rule 4641 compliance prior to the issuance of permits and approval for paved surfaces. The following are prohibited: a) Rapid cure cutback asphalt; b) Medium cure cutback asphalt; c) Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641). oCITY Ogad Agency: City of Bakersfield Page 3 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY STAGE STATUS NOTES s v (RR) AIR RR-8: In compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review (ISR)), the Project Project Applicant SJVAPCD Prior to issuance of a Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the grading permit SJVAPCD, which will identify emission reduction measures for emissions of NOx and PM 10. The performance measures listed below can be met through any combination of on -site emission reduction measures or off -site fees. a) Related to construction -related emissions, the exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by the ARB: 20% of the total NOX emissions, and 45% of the total PM10 exhausts emissions. Construction emissions can be reduced by using less b) polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing addon controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment. c) Related to operational emissions, NOX Emissions shall be reduced by 33.3% of the project's operational baseline NOX emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. PM10 emissions shall be reduced by 50% of the project's operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. AIR RR-9: If any building user occupying the Project site introduces equipment subject to regulation Building Users SJVAPCD If equipment subject to under SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), the owners of such equipment that emits, reduces, SJVAPCD Rule 2010 is or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to proposed for use apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD. AIR RR-10: If any building user occupying the Project site introduces equipment subject to Building Users SJVAPCD If equipment subject to SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), the owners of such SJVAPCD Rule 2201 is equipment are required to requires the review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution proposed for use and the provision of mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which apply for an Authority to Construct, demonstrating that the stationary source of air pollutants would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Rule 2201 also requires that there shall be no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. AIR RR-11: Construction contractors and building users shall comply with the provisions of Project Construction SJVAPCD Prior to grading and SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance). A note that requires compliance is required on all grading plans Contractors and Building building permit issuance and building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. A requirement to comply with Rule 4102 Users and during Project also shall be included in all building lease agreements. construction activities AIR RR-12: As a requirement of all construction contracts, a provision shall be included that requires Project Construction SJVAPCD Prior to grading and all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with current and applicable air quality Contractors building penuit issuance regulations of CARB and the SJVAPCD. OjITY Oteead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 ;7 71 ; Page 4 Z Z� Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD 5 REGULATORY'REQUiREMENTS PARTx .PARTY i STAGE STATUS NOTES _- (RR)" and during Project construction activities AIR DF-12: One row of trees planted along South H Street shall be non -deciduous (evergreen) Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to South H Street species. Tree species shall be indicated on final landscaping plans to be approved by the City of its designee improvement plan Bakersfield prior to approval of street improvement plans for South H Street. approvals AIR DF-13: At least 50% of the trees planted in the passenger vehicle parking lot between South H Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to building permit Street and the warehouse building shall be non -deciduous (evergreen) trees. Tree species shall be its designee approval for the parking lot indicated on final landscaping plans to be approved by the City of Bakersfield prior to approval of between South H Street and building permits that authorize the construction of passenger vehicle parking lots between South H the warehouse building Street and the warehouse building. AIR DF-14: No more than 101,219 s.f. of the warehouse space shall be constructed or operated as Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a chilled, refrigerated, or freezer space. Any such temperature -controlled warehouse space shall be its designee building permit for the denoted on building plans and the City shall verify that the total size of all such space does not exceed warehouse 101,219 s.f. as part of the City's building permit plan check process, both for the warehouse shell building permit and building permits for tenant improvements. 4.3 Biological Resources BIO MM-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any permit that authorizes ground Professional Biologist City of Bakersfield or Prior to the issuance of a Less than Significant with disturbance, a biological clearance survey shall be conducted on all areas that would be physically retained by Project its designee grading permit or any Mitigation Incorporated disturbed by a CDFW-approved biologist for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) in accordance with the Applicant permit that authorizes requirements of the MBHCP and CESA ITP. If known, active, or natal SJKF dens are identified ground disturbance. during the survey, minimization measures identified in the CESA ITP for den avoidance must be demonstrated (MBHSCP CESA ITP Condition of Approval 7.5). If dens cannot be avoided, monitoring and den exaction as described in MBHCP CESA ITP Condition of Approval 7.6 shall be adhered to. BIO MM-2: Surveys to detect burrowing owls shall be conducted by a CDFW-approved biologist Professional Biologist City of Bakersfield or 30 days prior to ground no more than 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities on the Project site and can be retained by Project its designee disturbance conducted concurrently with the pre -activity survey required per the MBHCP. Occupied burrows Applicant shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg -laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If burrowing owls are observed using burrows during the surveys, owls shall be excluded from all active burrows through the use of exclusion devices placed in occupied burrows in accordance with CDFG protocols, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, shall be implemented. In such case, exclusion devices shall not be placed until the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the burrow, as determined by a qualified biologist. Specifically, oCITY o LeaAAgency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 z �,, D Page 5 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION .MEASURES (MM) ` DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE' MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD = REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS= ` PARTY- PARTYe a STAGE-' ST.ATUS NOTES ; exclusion devices, utilizing one-way doors, shall be installed in the entrance of all active burrows. The devices shall be left in the burrows for at least 48 hours to ensure that all owls have been excluded from the burrows. Each of the burrows shall then be excavated by hand and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Exclusion shall continue until the owls have been successfully excluded from the site, as determined by a qualified biologist. BIO MM-3: If vegetation clearing or initial ground -disturbing construction activity occurs during Professional Biologist City of Bakersfield or Prior to ground disturbance the migratory bird nesting season (February I to August 31) a qualified avian biologist shall conduct retained by Project its designee if such disturbance will a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active Applicant occur between February 1 nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or lialted within a buffer area, and August 31 established by the qualified avian biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. BIO MM-4: The Project Applicant shall assure that the Project's construction contractors adhere to Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or During construction the following best management practices. Construction contractors shall be required by their contracts Construction Contractors its designee activities to comply with these best practices, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires compliance is required on all grading and building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. a) All construction personnel involved in ground -disturbing construction activities should attend a worker orientation program. The worker orientation program should present measures required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biological resources and should include, at a minimum, the following subjects: A summary of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); biological survey results for the current construction area; life history information for the species of concern; biological resource avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements; consequences for failure to successfully implement requirements; and procedures to be followed if dead or injured wildlife are located during Project activities. Upon completion of the orientation, employees should sign a form stating that they attended the program and understand all biological resource mitigation measures. Forms verifying worker attendance should be filed at the Project Applicant's office and be accessible to the City of Bakersfield, USFWS and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel should be allowed to work onsite with the exception of delivery trucks that are only onsite for 1 day or less and are under the supervision of a trained employee. J, TY Okead Agency: City of Bakersfield Page 6 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES {DF) AND REGULTORY,REQUIREIVIENTS' RESPONSIBLE PARTY s MONITORING PARTY": IMPLEMENTATION STAGE COMPLIANCE STATUS -NOTES b) All equipment storage and parking during construction activities should be confined to the designated construction area or to previously disturbed offsite areas that are not habitat for listed species. c) Project construction activities involving initial surface disturbance should occur during daylight hours. d) Trenches should be inspected for entrapped wildlife each morning prior to the onset of construction. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for entrapped animals. Any wildlife so discovered should be allowed to escape voluntarily, without harassment, before construction activities resume. A qualified biologist may remove wildlife from a trench, hole or other entrapment out of hann's way if the immediate welfare of the individual is in jeopardy. State or federal listed species may not be handled. Should any State or federal listed species become entrapped, CDFW and USFWS should be contacted as appropriate. e) All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by Project construction activities should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife should be prohibited. f) To prevent harassment of special -status species, construction personnel should not be allowed to have firearms or pets on the Project site. g) All equipment and work -related materials should be contained in closed containers either in the work area or on vehicles. Loose items (e.g., rags, hose, etc.) should be stored within closed containers or enclosed in vehicles when on the work site. h) Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the Project site should be prohibited unless approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of special -status species using adjacent habitats, and to avoid the depletion of prey upon which they depend. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of its proven lower risk to SJKF. i) Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species, or who finds any such wildlife dead, injured, or entrapped on the Project site, should be required to report the incident immediately to a designated site representative (e.g., foreman, project manager, environmental inspector, etc.). j) In the case of entrapped wildlife that are listed species, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately, if possible, to allow the subject wildlife to escape unimpeded. k) In the case of injured special -status wildlife, the CDFW should be notified immediately. During business hours Monday through Friday, the phone number is (559) 243-4017. For non -business hours, report to (800) 952-5400. Notification should include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident. Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care of the injured animal should be followed by the contractor onsite. G\Iy 00ad Agency: City of Bakersfield o m ` �C�l r�'X Page 7 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS RESPONSIBLE PARTY MONITORING PARTY-- IMPLEMENTATION STAGE COMPLIANCE STATUS NOTES ln 1) In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the CDFW should be immediately (within 24 hours) notified by phone or in person, and should document the initial notification in writing within 2 working days of the findings of any such wildlife. Notification should include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident. m) Material and equipment inspections shall be conducted according to the MBHCP CESA ITP. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a diameter 3 inches or greater shall be properly capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife. Any of these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not capped shall be inspected prior to being moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife are not present. If a listed species is found within pipe, culverts or similar structures, the animal will be allowed to escape that section of its own accord prior to moving or utilizing that segment. n) If any previously unidentified protected species or any previously unreported protected species is found to be present during Project -related construction activities, occupied areas shall be avoided and the construction contractor shall be required by its contract to call a CDFW- approved biologist to the site to identify the species. If the species is protected, the qualified biologist shall notify the USFWS and CDFW of any previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW. BIO RR-5: For grading/ground disturbance that is not authorized per the MBHCP or that is not Professional Biologist USFWS, CDFW, City Prior to issuance of a authorized by January 1, 2023 or occurs after June 1, 2023, the Project site shall be surveyed by a retained by Project of Bakersfield or its grading permit qualified professional biologist for signs of occupation by San Joaquin kit fox. The Project Applicant Applicant designee shall coordinate with CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) if there is evidence of site occupation by San Joaquin kit fox. If CDFW or USFWS deternrine that the Project may result in unauthorized take of San Joaquin kit fox, the appropriate (CESA and/or FESA) take authorization shall be obtained. CESA and FESA authorizations shall include treasures addressing the respective state and/or federal listed species and shall include the following at a minimum: • Implementation of standardized biological resource protective measures included in BIO MM-4; • Biological preconstruction surveys conducted by qualified biologists approved by each applicable agency no more than 30 days prior to conducting work on the Project site; • If any known San Joaquin kit fox dens are detected, implementation of the most recent USFWS protocols (Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011)) unless protocols are issued by either CDFW or USFWS that supersede these protocols. • Destruction of San Joaquin kit fox dens shall follow the monitoring and excavation procedures in USFWS (2011). • Biological monitoring of initial ground disturbance during each phase of grading; r X Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 5 v Page 8 > '� Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY' STAGE rSTA,TUS NOTES W u �( } ' 'F .. 3 • Provision for compliance reporting to be provided to each agency as required in respective take authorizations; • Compensation for habitat disturbance acceptable to CDFW (state listed species) and/or USFWS (federal listed species) at a ratio of no less than 3:1 for permanent impacts and 1.1:1 for temporary impacts to listed species habitat. The only existing approved conservation bank for impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat in Kern County is the Kem Water Bank Authority_Conservation Bank. Lands used to mitigate for San Joaquin kit fox must be contiguous with other potentially occupied lands, provide suitable foraging and denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox, and be located in the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County below 1,500' in elevation; • Compensation land shall be funded for maintenance, protection, and management through establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment. The endowment must be a non -wasting account that is acceptable to both CDFW and USFWS. BIO-RR-6: For grading permits or any other permits that authorize ground disturbance that are Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of grading issued prior to January 1, 2023, or in compliance with the MBHCP, the Project Applicant shall pay its designee permit or other ground fees pursuant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and Incidental disturbance permits Take Permit, which includes coverage for the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). The payment of development impact fees is considered adequate mitigation under the MBHCP and Incidental Take Permit to minimize impacts on special -status species. The fees are placed in an account for habitat acquisition and management to be used by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Trust Group. Upon the payment of this fee as specified by the City of Bakersfield, the Project Applicant will become a sub-penmittee and will be allowed the incidental take of the species in accordance with State and federal endangered species laws and mitigation requirements of all parties, including State, federal, and local (City of Bakersfield and Kem County 1994, Incidental Take Permit No.2081-2013-058-04). 4.4 Cultural Resources CR MM-1: Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period involving ground- Professional City of Bakersfield or Prior to the issuance of a Less than Significant with disturbing construction activities, a construction worker cultural awareness training program shall be Archaeologist retained its designee grading permit or any Mitigation Incorporated provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The by Project Applicant permit that authorizes training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist. Workers ground disturbance attending the training shall sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant and made available to the City of Bakersfield upon request. CR MM-2: If suspected cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or If suspected cultural work within 100 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified and Professional its designee resources are encountered cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Archaeologist retained Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the by Project Applicant discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be 0CITY bgad Agency: City of Bakersfield M Ido c) z y r�� ,y 9 Page 9 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) s DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD - REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY' STAGE STATUSNOT,ES �., V. required. If cultural resources are discovered that may have relevance to Native Americans, the specialist or Project Applicant must provide written notice to the City of Bakersfield, Tejon Indian Tribe, Native American Heritage Commission, and any other appropriate individuals, agencies, and/or groups as determined by the specialist in consultation with the City of Bakersfield to receive input regarding treatment and disposition of the resource, which may include avoidance, testing, and/or excavation to prevent destruction of the resource and/or to allow documentation of the resource for research potential. 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. CR MM-3: During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall Construction Contractors County Coroner If human remains are Less than Significant with be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, discovered Mitigation Incorporated 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. Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254 (r). 4.5 Energy No mitigation is required. 4.6 Geology and Soils GEO MM-4: Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period involving Professional City of Bakersfield or Prior to the issuance of a Less than Significant with ground -disturbing construction activities, a construction worker paleontological resource awareness paleontologist retained its designee grading permit Mitigation Incorporated training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment by the Project Applicant at the project site, if their work will involve ground -disturbing construction activities greater than six feet in depth in Pleistocene older alluvium soils. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified professional paleontologist. Workers attending the training shall sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant and made available to the City of Bakersfield upon request. GEO MM-2: If paleontological resources are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the find shall Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or If paleontological resources halt until a qualified paleontologist can be called to the site to evaluate the find and make and professional its designee are discovered recommendations. Paleontological resource materials may include fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks that have been preserved in rock. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the oGITYp �Vad Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 Page 10 Qh:�' Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF). AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY -RE PARTY PARTY, x- STAGE STATUS NOTES y o i. xr ✓.� e. N _ discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and paleontologist retained fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts to less than significant levels. by the Project Applicant Construction within 100 feet of the find shall not resume until the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be to be less than significant by the paleontologist. GEO NM-3: Recovered specimens, if any, shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and Professional City of Bakersfield or If paleontological resources permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and paleontologist retained its designee are discovered vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited by the Project Applicant public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storages shall be required for discoveries of significance as determined by the paleontologist GEO MM-4: A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, Professional City of Bakersfield or If paleontological resources including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record paleontologist retained its designee are discovered and prior to the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield prior by the Project Applicant final building inspection to final building inspection. GEO RR 5: In compliance with City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.05, California Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a Building Code, construction of the Project is required to adhere to the California Building Standards Construction Contractors its designee building pemrit Code and its requirement to prepare and adhere to site -specific recommendations contained in a geotechnical report prepared for the Project site. As such, compliance with the recommendations provided in the Project's geotechnical study prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. and dated September 9, 2021 (contained as Technical Appendix F to this EIR) is required. GEO RR-6: To address wind erosion, Project construction activities are required to comply with the Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or During Project construction provisions of Chapter 15 Section 104.12 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure that dust its designee activities abatement measures comply with the current standards set for by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJAPCD). GEO RR-7: The Project Applicant is required, pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board, Project Applicant Regional Water Quality Prior to issuance of a to obtain coverage under the State's General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction Control Board grading permit activities (NPDES permit). Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction -related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that construction contractors will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterbome pollution — including erosion/sedimentation — is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro -seeding. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions P Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield z ,, D r,� 01T,N Page 11 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORYREQUIREMENTS PARTY= PARTY STAGE STATUS NOTES (RR} GHG MM-1: Construction contractors shall assure that: a) construction equipment greater than 150 Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a horsepower achieves or is equivalent to or better than Enviromnental Protection Agency its designee grading permit and prior to (EPA)/Califomia Air Resources Board (GARB) Tier 4 emissions standards, or Tier 3 standards if issuance of a building Tier 4 equipment is not available at the time of construction; and b) construction equipment over 50 permit, and during horsepower is fitted with best available control technology (BACT) devices, if technically feasible construction and if the BACT devices can be reasonably acquired by the contractor. These requirements shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective contractors. Prior to grading and building permit issuance, the construction contractor(s) shall submit an equipment list to the City's Development Services Director confirming that the equipment used is compliant. The contractor(s) also shall keep a copy of the equipment list, with CARB tier levels noted, BACT devices noted, and any required CARB or SJVAPC operating permits required, on the construction site in a location available for the City or City designee for inspection upon request. GHG MM-2: Construction contractors shall assure that hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a used for construction are electric -powered and shall designate an area of the construction site where its designee grading pennit and prior to electric -powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge. The City of Bakersfield shall issuance of a building verify the location of the designated charging area in association with grading and building permit permit, and during issuance. construction GHG MM-3: Project construction contractors shall tune and maintain all construction equipment in Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a accordance with the equipment manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and its designee grading permit and prior to specifications. Maintenance records for all pieces of equipment shall be kept on -site for the duration issuance of a building of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City of Bakersfield permit, and during or its designee. construction GHG MM-4: Provisions shall be made at the warehouse site for emerging electric truck technology. Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a shell Prior to the issuance of a shell building permit for the warehouse building, the City of Bakersfield its designee building permit shall verify that the warehouse site plan identifies an on -site location for future electric truck (tractor) charging stations, with space available for a minimum of 9 trailers to simultaneously charge (5% of the number of warehouse building dock doors) when charging stations are installed in the future. The conduit trenching shall be installed to that location for future conduit pull as a requirement of the shell building permit. GHG MM-5: In conjunction with the approval of tenant improvement plans and prior to the issuance Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to approval of tenant of an occupancy permit, a minimum of 9 truck (tractor) electric charging stations shall be installed its designee improvement plans and on -site, technology permitting. If the warehouse building tenant is not served by electric trucks, at prior to the issuance of a the time the City issues the certificate of occupancy, as a condition of the occupancy permit, electric certificate of occupancy truck charging stations shall be installed and operational, technology permitting, no later than 18 months from the date of certificate occupancy or December 31, 2025, whichever is soonest. �Gi���� d Agency: City of Bakersfield Page 12 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD 1 REGULATORYREQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY _` STAGE STATUS NOTES: ;&R _ — . r GHG MM-6: Prior to issuance of a shell building permit for the warehouse building, the City of Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a shell Bakersfield shall verify that electric charging stations are provided at the exterior for the purpose of its designee building permit charging electric yard equipment such as forklifts and yard hostlers. GHG MM-6A: The Project site owner and all successors in interest shall stipulate in building sale Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a and lease agreements that all indoor and outdoor forklifts and all outdoor cargo -handling equipment Building Users its designee certificate of occupancy (e.g., yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks,_forklifts) shall be powered by electric or other zero -emission technology. GHG MM-7: The roof of the warehouse building and all commercial structures shall be outfitted Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a shell with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible given applicable Building Code its designee building permit requirements, clearance requirements around roof -mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance constraints. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that the roof -mounted solar photovoltaic systems are installed. GHG MM-8: Any loading dock serving refrigerated warehouse space shall be equipped with an Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a tenant electric plug to power a transport refrigeration unit. Prior to issuance of a tenant improvement its designee improvement building building permit that authorizes the installation of refrigerated warehouse space, the City of permit that authorizes the Bakersfield shall verify that the electric plug will be provided. installation of refrigerated warehouse space GHG MM-8A: A natural gas line shall not be installed to service the warehouse building. The City Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a shell of Bakersfield shall verify that there will be no gas line during the shell building permit and tenant Building Users its designee building permit and during improvement building permit plan check processes. the tenant improvement building permit plan check process GHG MM-8B: Commercial buildings shall be prohibited from using natural gas for building Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or During the tenant operations with the exception of food service business that require the use of natural gas to operate Building Users its designee improvement building commercial kitchens. The City of Bakersfield shall verify compliance with this requirement during permit plan check process the tenant improvement building permit plan check process. GHG MM-8C: The warehouse building owner shall stipulate in building sale and lease agreements Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a that all transport refrigeration units accessing the Project site are required to be equipped with electric Building Users its designee certificate of occupancy plug-in capabilities and shall be required to plug in at a loading dock within 15 minutes of entering the Project site. GHG MM-9: The warehouse building's electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to accommodate City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a the number and size of electrical panels reasonably anticipated to be needed to support technological Project Applicant its designee building permit advances in zero -emission technologies. Prior to issuance of a shell building permit for the warehouse building, the City of Bakersfield shall ensure that either a secondary electrical room will be provided in the building or that the primary electrical room of the building is sized 25% larger than is required OCITY 0 L3 z n, r-Q, %N D Agency: City of Bakersfield Page 13 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES(DF) AND= RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PARTS PARTY STAGE STATUS' NOpTES` (j ; to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear installed with the initial construction has 25% excess demand capacity. GHG MM-10: At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a ready, with all necessary raceways, conduit and related appurtenances installed pursuant to the its designee certificate of occupancy requirements of CALGreen Title 24. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces assigned to the warehouse building shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces assigned to the commercial development area shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations or better, with at least 2% of the spaces equipped with a working Level 3 Quick charge stations, installed and operational, prior to each —building occupancy. All of the charging stations shall be publicly accessible and not positioned behind gates or otherwise restricted from public access. Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air/EV vehicles. Unless superior technology is developed that would replace the EV charging units, the building operators and any successors in interest shall be responsible for maintaining the EV charging stations in working order for the life of the buildings. GHG MM-11: The rooftops of commercial buildings and the office portions of the warehouse Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a building shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index ("SRI") its designee building permit of not less than 78. This material shall be the minimum solar reflective rating of the roof material for the life of the building. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that the roofing material complies. GHG MM-12: The Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall provide the warehouse building Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a operator with an information packet regarding EPA Smartway features that are required to be its designee certificate of occupancy incorporated into haul trucks, as required by CARB. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. GHG MM-13: The Project's building users shall be encouraged to explore incentives available from Building Users City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a the SJVAPCD under the "Heavy Duty Truck Replacement Program." This program provides its designee certificate of occupancy incentives for the replacement of existing heavy-duty diesel trucks with new, zero or near -zero - emission technology. (At the time of this writing, information is available at https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/truck-replacement-program/.) Provided that this program or a comparable program remains available, an information packet about the program shall be provided to every building user prior to occupancy. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant, its successor in interest, or the Project's property owner's association shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. GHG MM-13B: The Project's commercial property owner's association and warehouse building Project Applicant and City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a tenant shall explore incentives available from "The Clean Green Yard Machines Commercial Building Users its designee certificate of occupancy Voucher Program." This program provides incentives to use electric landscape maintenance GITY mead Agency: City of Bakersfield o � y Page 14 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES OF) AND: RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION , COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULAORYREQUIREMENTS PARTY `PARTY STAGESATUS NOTES _. _.. , equipment. (At the time of this writing, infonnation is available at https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yard-achines-coinmercial/.) Provided that this program or a comparable program remains available, an information packet about the program shall be provided to the Project's commercial property owner's association upon formation of the association and to warehouse building user prior to occupancy. The Project Applicant, its successor in interest, or the Project's property owner's association shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. GHG MM-14: The Project's building tenants shall be encouraged in building sale and lease Building Users City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a agreements to use zero -emission commercial vehicles upon reasonable commercial availability of its designee certificate of occupancy such vehicles. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building user shall report to the City of Bakersfield as part of the occupancy permit application process whether the business will be served by owned, leased, or vendor commercial vehicles, and their fuel types, if known. The City shall in turn provide the applicant with information regarding the environmental benefits of zero - emission commmercial vehicles and any incentive programs the City is aware of to encourage businesses to use zero -emission vehicles. Tenant -owned light -duty and medium -duty delivery vehicles assigned to the warehouse full time shall be registered in the City of Bakersfield. GHG RR-14: All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to the issuance of Code to minimize total consumption of energy. The City of Bakersfield shall confirm Title 24 its designee building permits compliance prior to the issuance of building permits. GHG RR-15: All vehicle operators are required to comply with CARB Rule 2485 and CARB Rule Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or Prior to the issuance of 2449, which limits nonessential idling of diesel -fueled commercial vehicle engines and diesel- its designee occupancy permits powered off -road equipment to five minutes or less. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for buildings with loading dock areas, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that signs are posted in these areas that inform vehicle and equipment operators about the requirements of these Rules except that such signs shall post a 3-minute idling restriction (instead of the 5-minutes required by CARB). GHG RR-16: In compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review (ISR)), the Project Project Applicant SJVACPD Prior to, and during Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the construction activities, and SJVAPCD, which will identify emission reduction measures for emissions of NOx and PM 1o. The during operation performance measures listed below can be met through any combination of on -site emission reduction measures or off -site fees. a) Related to construction -related emissions, the exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by the ARB: 20% of the total NOx emissions, and 45% of the total PMio exhausts emissions. Construction emissions can be O TY pFLead Agency: City of Bakersfield M �p � v Page 15 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY. REQUIREMENTS PARTY_ , PARTY STAGE STATUS NOTES (RR) reduced by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing addon controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment. b) Related to operational emissions, NOx emissions shall be reduced by 33.3% of the project's operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. PM+o emissions shall be reduced by 50% of the project's operational baseline PM+o emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ MM-1: The Project's construction contractors shall provide training and personal protective Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a Less than Significant with equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel involved in its designee grading permit Mitigation Incorporated ground -disturbing construction activities about the potential for discovery of subsurface septic systems and soil contaminates. Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to provide the training and protective gear, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires these items is required on all grading plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. HAZ MM-2: Any stained or odorous soil that may be encountered during ground -disturbing Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or If stained or odorous soil is activities shall be removed, stockpiled, and transported for disposal in accordance with local, State, and an Environmental its designee encountered and federal regulations. Soil samples shall be collected from the resulting excavation(s) to verify Professional retained by complete removal of any impacted soil. During soils/debris removal operations, a Project the Project Applicant Environmental Professional (Envirommental Professional) shall be retained by the Project Applicant or construction contractor and shall be available to identify and address other issues that may arise in the course soil -disturbing construction activities. As determined necessary by the Environmental Professional, additional measures shall be employed to minimize effects of any encountered hazards. Documentation of the measures employed and resulting conditions after their application shall be documented and submitted to the City of Bakersfield. HAZ MM-3: Representative soil samples shall be collected prior to ground disturbance and analyzed Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a for residual organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated herbicides. Should residual levels be detected its designee grading permit that exceed action levels established by regulatory agencies, materials shall be handled under the direction of a licensed environmental professional and in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Any stained or odorous soil that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities shall be removed, stockpiled, and transported for disposal in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. Soil samples shall be collected from the resulting excavation(s) to verify complete removal of any impacted soil. During soils/debris removal operations, a Project Environmental Professional (Environmental Professional) shall be retained by the Project Applicant or construction contractor and shall be available to identify and address other issues that may arise in the course of soil -disturbing construction activities. As determined necessary by the Environmental Professional, additional measures shall be employed to minimize effects of any encountered hazards. 0Qead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 >7 � Page 16 z rOl3'+�5y Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION 1V,LFASURES (NI`M), DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULI TORY REQUIREMENTS PART7�'= �. PARTY ; ,STAGE STATUS NtOTES _ N. F �E s �_. s — - ' ' Documentation of the measures employed and resulting conditions after their application shall be documented and submitted to the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield is required to assure that implementing development complies with the assumptions relied upon herein and applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the topic of Hazards and Hazardous Materials. HAZ RR-3: Existing water wells shall be abandoned and capped as part of the site preparation phase Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or During Project construction of the construction process, consistent with applicable regulations of the State of California its designee activities Department of Water Resources (as reflected in Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90); and the Central Valley RWQCB. HAZ RR-4: Any septic systems encountered during construction activities shall be properly Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or During Project construction abandoned in compliance with the regulations ofthe Central Valley RWQCB; the California Uniform its designee activities Plumbing Code; and Manual of Septic Tank Practice as published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and the rules, standards and regulations of the City of Bakersfield. HAZ RR-5: Construction contractors shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or During Project construction and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction- its designee activities related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Central Valley RWQCB. HAZ RR-6: Any business that occupies the Project site and that handles hazardous materials (as Building Users Kern County Fire Upon any release or defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) shall be Department and the threatened release of required to comply with California's Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory State Office of hazardous material Law, which requires immediate reporting to the Kern County Fire Department and the State Office Emergency Services of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). HAZ RR-7: If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the future buildings on the Building Users City of Bakersfield or During Project operation Project site, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable its designee federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances. HAZ RR-8: The proposed Project would be required to comply with the Kern County Operational Project Applicant and Kern County Fire During Project operation Area Hazardous Materials Area Plan to ensure compliance with established procedures, rules, and Building Users Department regulations for emergency responses in the event of a hazardous materials incident. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality HYD RR-1: The Project Applicant and construction contractor are required to comply with the Project Applicant and Regional Water Quality During Project construction requirements of a NPDES permit, and SWPPP. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the SWPPP Construction Contractors Control Board activities require an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best CITE _m Lead Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 t7 -T� a Page 17 701 T, N5Z Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PARTY PARTY. STAGE STATUS NOTES Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate discharges to surface water from storm water and non- stormwater discharges during construction activities. HYD RR-2: During construction, Project construction contractors are required to comply with the Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or During Project construction requirements of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part I 1 of Title 24, its designee activities California Code of Regulations) or any subsequent version of the Title 24 in effect at the time of building permit issuance, which requires among other items the installation of low water -use features. HYD DF-3: A water quality/retention basin that meets the sizing requirements for a 5-day/l0yr storm City of Bakersfield or During Project construction event, for both the warehouse distribution and commercial components of the Project, shall be Project Applicant its designee activities installed in the west -central portion of the Project site and shall be operational prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit for the Project. The sizing parameters are specified in a Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the Project by Cornerstone Engineering, dated March 24, 2022, and included as EIR Technical Appendix H. 4.10 Land Use and Planning Mitigation is not required. 4.11 Noise Mitigation is not required. 4.12 Population and Housing Mitigation is not required. 4.13 Transportation TRN RR-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay appropriate Traffic Project Applicant City of Bakersfield Prior to issuance of building hnpact Fee (TIF) fees at the rates then in effect in accordance with Chapter 15.84 of the City's permits Municipal Code. TRN RR-2: All off -site roadway improvements shall comply with applicable provisions of City of Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to approval of Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) and Chapter 13.12 (Development its designee roadway improvement plans Improvements Standards and Specifications). TRN RR-2A: If any building user occupying the Project site employs 100 or more eligible Building Users with over SJVAPCD Prior to issuance of employees, an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) is required to be established 100 Employees certificate of occupancy in compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction). Rule 9410 requires that employers encourage employees to reduce single -occupancy vehicle trips to reduce pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. C'm CFead Agency: City of Bakersfield t? m Z Page 18 SCH No.2022030196 Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES, (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATOR��� UIREMENTS PARTY PARTY STAGE STATUS NOTES . ,. TRN DF-3: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the warehouse building, the facility Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of a operator(s) shall establish and submit for approval to the Development Services Director a Truck its designee certificate of occupancy Routing Plan to and from SR-99 using the Hosking Avenue ramps, which will apply to trucks owned and operated by the warehouse building user. The plan shall include measures, such as signage, pavement markings, and enforcement mechanisms for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. The facility operator shall be responsible for enforcement of the plan. TRN DF-3A: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the warehouse building, the Project Project Applicant City of Bakersfield and Prior to issuance of a Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an application to the City of Bakersfield and Caltrans Caltrans occupancy permit for the to designate the warehouse's truck route, from State Route 99 to Hosking Avenue to South H Street warehouse to Berkshire Road west of South H Street as a "Terminal Truck Route." Upon approval, enforcement of the truck route use will be provided by the California Highway Patrol and Bakersfield Police Department. TRN DF-4: Signage and pavement markings shall be installed interior to the site to denote efficient Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of building vehicle movement patterns. Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall review improvement its designee permits plans for all vehicle travel surfaces to ensure that specifications are noted to install directional signage and pavement markings. The markings for truck circulation are required to be bold enough to be noticeable by truck drivers. The City shall verify that the signs and markings are installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. The warehouse building owner or user and commercial property owner's association shall be made responsible for maintaining the interior directional signage and pavement markings for perpetual legibility. TRN DF-5: At every bike rack and bike parking location required under CALGreen Title 24, a Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of building charging station shall be provided for the purpose of charging electric bikes. Prior to building permit its designee permits issuance, the City shall review improvement plans to ensure that specifications are noted to install electric bike charging stations. The City shall verify that the charging stations are installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. TRN DF-6: Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, the Project Project Applicant City of Bakersfield and Prior to issuance of first Applicant shall coordinate with Golden Empire Transit District (GET) and the City of Bakersfield to Golden Empire Transit occupancy permit install one bus stop at the Project site's frontage with Berkshire Road and one stop at the Project site's District frontage with South H Street. Additionally, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with GET on bus route adjustments to incorporate both stops into a GET bus route. TRN DF-7: Ali ADA-compliant path shall be provided from the new site -adjacent bus stop on Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to approval of Berkshire Road to an entrance of the warehouse building. The path shall be indicated on building its designee building permit for the and landscaping plans for the warehouse to be approved by the City of Bakersfield. warehouse TRN DF-8: An ADA-compliant path shall be provided from the new site -adjacent bus stop on South Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to approval of H Street to the sidewalk system serving the commercial buildings positioned south of the warehouse. its designee building permits for commercial structures OC1Ty -90d Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 Page 19 073 iAs Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORYREQUIREMENTS PARTY PART STAGE- STATUS NOTES a .� --- - ` The path shall be indicated on building and landscaping plans for the first commercial structure south The of the warehouse to be approved by the City of Bakersfield. TRN DF-9: The Project's commercial property owner's association is required to prepare and submit Commercial Property City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of first to the City of Bakersfield for approval a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) Owner's Association its designee occupancy permit for a applicable to all commercial building tenants in the Project, prior to issuance of the first certificate of commercial structure occupancy for a commercial building tenant. The City -approved TDMP, which will required to be administered and enforced by the Project's commercial property owner's association, shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools, transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of traffic congestion, and on -site parking preferences for zero -emission vehicles, among other items that have reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on single -occupant gas -powered vehicles during peak time travel periods (rush hours). TRN DF-10: The warehouse user shall be encouraged by the provisions of its lease to implement a Building Users City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of local hiring program, which may consist of job fairs or other programs to incentivize and prioritize its designee occupancy permit for the the employment of persons who live near the property, to reduce commuting distance from home to warehouse work. TRN DF-11: Prior to building permit issuance, the City of Bakersfield shall review building plans to Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of building ensure that specifications are noted to install painted crosswalks or enhanced paving materials its designee permits and approval of denoting the pedestrian and bicycle lane crossings across the Project's driveways connecting with street improvement plans Berkshire Road and South H Street, the purpose of visually alerting drivers that pedestrians and for Berkshire Road and bicyclists could be crossing the driveways. The markings on the Berkshire Road driveways are South H Street required to be bold enough to be noticeable by truck drivers. The City shall verify that the markings are installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the first building that would use said driveways for access. TRN DF-12: The warehouse developer and all successors in interest shall install and maintain signs Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of at the Project driveway exits connecting with Berkshire Road at heights visible to truck drivers that its designee occupancy permit state, "Caution: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Ahead". The City shall verify installation of the signs prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit and require as a condition of the occupancy permit that the signs be maintained in legible condition. 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation is accomplished under Section 4.3, Cultural Resources. 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems UTL RR-1: During construction, Project construction contractors are required to comply with the Construction Contractors City of Bakersfield or During Project construction requirements of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part 11 of Title 24, its designee activities California Code of Regulations), which requires among other items the installation of low water -use or4tTYL�d Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 G Page 20 z n� rOl3','�c'v Majestic Gateway Project Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) DESIGN FEATURES (DF) AND, RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD REGULATORY.,;RE,- WREMENTS PARTY PARTX _ STAGE `_ STATUS=NOTES appliances and requires that a minimum of 65 percent of the solid waste generated by the Project's construction phase be diverted from local landfills. UTL RR-2: The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the California Solid Waste Project Applicant City of Bakersfield or Prior to issuance of building Reuse and Recycling Act (AB 1327) which requires that an adequate area for collecting and loading its designee permits recyclable materials over the lifetime of the project be provided. The City of Bakersfield shall ensure the provision of this area prior to the issuance of building permits. UTL RR-3: The Project Applicant, construction contractors, and operators, shall comply with all Project Applicant, City of Bakersfield or During Project construction applicable provisions of Chapter 8.32, Solid Waste/Recyclable Materials/Organic Waste, of the City Construction Contractors its designee activities and during of Bakersfield Municipal Code. and Building Users building operation UTL RR 4: The Project Applicant, construction contractors, and operators, shall comply with all Project Applicant, City of Bakersfield or During Project construction applicable provisions of Chapter 14.02, Water and Sewers, of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. Construction Contractors its designee activities and during and Building Users building operation UTL RR-5: The Project Applicant, construction contractors, and operators, shall comply with all Project Applicant, City of Bakersfield or During Project construction applicable provisions of Chapter 17.61, Landscape Standards, of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Construction Contractors its designee activities and during Code. and Building Users building operation OCITYQ 0-ad Agency: City of Bakersfield SCH No. 2022030196 r ��, Page 21 �13%�s Exhibit 6: Findings F- T 'ORIGINAL Findings of Fact Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the: Majestic Gateway Project State Clearinghouse No. 2022030196 Lead Agency City of Bakersfield Development Service Department 1715 Chester Avenue, 2"d Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 CEQA Consultant T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 Project Applicant Majestic Realty Co. 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, 6th Floor City of Industry, CA 91746 DRAFT: September 23, 2022 o``gAKFa� 'ORIGINAL MaJestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact Table of Contents Section SCH No. 2022030196 Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Summary .....................................................................................................................1 1.2 City of Bakersfield Actions Covered By the EIR.................................................................... 2 1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation.....................................................................3 2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings....................................................................5 2.1 General Findings...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not RequiringMitigation............................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level ofLess than Significant......................................................................................................... 38 2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable .................................... 59 2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented......................................................................................... 68 2.6 Growth -Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project................................................................ 69 2.7 Project Alternatives...............................................................................................................70 3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations............................................................. 76 4.0 Additional Facts on Record............................................................................... 77 4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures...................................................... 77 4.2 Custodian of Record.............................................................................................................. 77 �g P KEa� o -e > rn ~ o 00RIGINA1. Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact 1.0 Introduction SCH No. 2022030196 The City Council of the City of Bakersfield (the "City Council") in approving the Majestic Gateway Project (the "Project"), makes the Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Project on behalf of the City of Bakersfield (the "City") acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Hereinafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the "EIR" unless otherwise specified. 1.1 Project Summary 1.1.1 Site Location The ±90.59 gross -acre (f84.67 net -acre) Project site is located within the southern portion of the City of Bakersfield in Kern County, California. Kern County is bound by Kings, Tulare, and Inyo counties to the north; San Bernardino County to the east; Los Angeles and Ventura counties to the south; and Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties to the west. At the local scale, the Project site is located east of State Route 99 (SR-99), north of Hosking Avenue, south of Berkshire Road, and west of South H Street. The Project Site includes eight parcels: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 515-020-05, -07, -08, -09, -30, -44, -45, and -47. 1.1.2 Project Description The Project includes the development of 90.59 gross acres with commercial uses and a warehouse distribution center. Twelve commercial buildings are conceptually designed to provide up to 187,500 s.f. of building space. The warehouse is designed to provide up to 1,012,185 s.f. of building space. The commercial portion of the Project site is 29.25 gross acres (27.91 net acres), the warehouse distribution portion of the Project site is 56.86 gross acres (52.28 net acres), and a water retention basin is proposed on 4.48 net acres. Approximately 5.92 acres of right-of-way would be dedicated to the City of Bakersfield for the widening of South H Street and Berkshire Road. The Project includes legislative and site development actions. The legislative actions entail a proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC No. 21-0184). Site development actions entail a proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTPM No. 12438) and Site Plan Review No. 21-0185. The general intent of the proposed legislative actions for the 52.28 net -acre warehouse distribution portion of the Project site is to change the land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Light Industrial (LI), and the zoning classification from Regional Commercial -Planned Commercial Development Combining (C-2/PCD) to Light Manufacturing (M-1). For the 27.91 net -acre commercial portion of the Project site and the 4.48-acre retention basin portion of the Project site, the legislative action also includes a change in zoning classification from C-2/PCD to Exclusive PCD. VTPM No. 12438 would subdivide the Project site into 17 parcels and dedicate 5.92 acres of right-of-way to the City of Bakersfield for the widening of South H Street and Berkshire Road, and would allow for the m F- r 00RIGINRL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 construction of off -site roadway and utility connection improvements. Site Plan Review No. 21-0185 would permit the development and operation of a warehouse building on ±52.28 acres of the Project site proposed with a M-1 zoning classification, as well as implementation of an adjacent water retention basin on 4.48 acres zoned Exclusive PCD. 1.1.3 Project Objectives The fundamental purpose and goal of the Majestic Gateway Project is to develop an economically viable commercial area and warehouse distribution center in close proximity to an established population and the State highway system to expand employment and retail shopping opportunities in the City of Bakersfield. The Project would achieve its underlying purpose and goal through the following objectives. A. Expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the City of Bakersfield by establishing a new commercial development area and a warehouse distribution facility adjacent to or near the State highway system. B. Attract employment -generating businesses to the City of Bakersfield to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, thereby improving the jobs -housing balance in the City and nearby areas beyond the City boundary. C. Diversify the mix of land uses in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County to support the growing goods movement supply chain and to streamline package delivery services in and around the City of Bakersfield. D. Establish a supply chain use adjacent to or near designated truck routes and/or the State highway system to avoid or shorten vehicular trip lengths on other roadways. E. Provide retail shopping opportunities easily accessible to local residents and passers-by on the State highway system to assist in meeting the growing and evolving shopping demands of local residents and planned communities in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County. F. Develop an unused or underutilized property adjacent to SR-99. G. Provide a gathering place for City residents and visitors that includes shopping and other retail services in an aesthetically appealing environment. H. Facilitate the development of commercial and distribution warehouse uses that are architecturally and operationally designed to meet contemporary industry standards and be economically competitive with similar buildings in the region. 1.2 City of Bakersfield Actions Covered By the EIR The City of Bakersfield has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City's Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Final EIR, GPA/ZC No. 21-0184, 2 > M 'ORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 VTPM No. 12438 and Site Plan No. 21-0185. The Planning Commission will make advisory recommendations to the City Council. A public hearing will then be held before the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR and approval of GPA/ZC No. 21-0184, VTPM No. 12438, and Site Plan No. 21-0185. The City Council is the approval authority for certification of the Final EIR and approval of GPA/ZC No. 21-0184 and VTPM No. 12438. The City Council will direct the Development Services Director whether to approve Site Plan No. 21-0185. Other agencies also may use the EIR as part of their decision -making processes concerning the proposed Project. 1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City's decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use of mitigation measures and project design requirements which have been found to be feasible; and to disclose to the public the reasons why the City has initiated the Project in the manner chosen in light of the significant environmental effects which have been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following: o Prepared an Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation, which were used as the basis for the determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the Project's EIR as: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities & Service Systems; o The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation were sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (the "State Clearinghouse"), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on March 8, 2022, for a 30-day review period; o Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting on March 30, 2022 using an internet-based virtual platform (Zoom); o Held an in -person EIR Scoping Meeting on April 11, 2022 at the City of Bakersfield City Hall, with interpretation services available in Spanish and Punjabi languages, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR; o Submitted a Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on July 15, 2022; o Mailed a Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice on July 14, 2022 to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on July 15, 2022, and ending on August 29, 2022; o Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site on July 15, 2022; gAKF� >- m r OORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 o Provided copies of the Draft EIR to 63 public agencies, organizations, and individuals on July 15, 2022; o Made the Notice of Availability and Draft EIR available to the public on the City's website; o Published the Notice of Availability in the Bakersfield Californian, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on July 18, 2022; o Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR; o Published a notice on September 21, 2022, in the Bakersfield Californian, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on October 6, 2022, to consider the Project and EIR for recommendation to the City Council; o Sent notice of the Planning Commission's hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on September 23, 2022; o Sent written responses to comments to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on September 26, 2022 (six comment letters were received); o Published a notice on M, in the i � WSthe newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the City Council would hold a public hearing on M, to consider approval of the Project and certification of the EIR; o Sent notice of the City Council's hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on M o Held a public hearing of the City Council on SAT =, and, after full consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Project. All of the documents identified above and all of the documents which are required to be part of the administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, 2°a Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93301. 4 ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings 2.1 General Findings 2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the City and working under the supervision and direction of the City's Planning Department staff. The City Council, as the City's final decision -making body for the Project, received and reviewed the EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by public agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the EIR complied with CEQA. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff and its consultants, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the City Council, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency, and of the City Council as the decision -making body for the Project. 2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR Finding: The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of the Finding: The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and minor modifications to the Draft EIR. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in it and has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a feasible mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the Project Applicant declined to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. No information provided to the City Council indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. 2.1.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures It is the City's intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the EIR which are applicable to the Project, which the City finds to consist of all feasible measures that reduce the Project's significant impacts. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified 581s m r 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures. 2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact under the following resource areas: 2.2.1 Aesthetics A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Threshold «a») Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located in an area designated as scenic in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, is not within the City's Hillside Development Combining Zone (Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.66), and is not within a City -designated Class I or II Visual Resource Area, Viewshed, or Slope Protection Area. In the far distance on clear days, views are possible from the Project site and its surrounding area to the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the Coast Range to the west, and the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the northeast. Because the existing visual setting of the Project site does not contain significant visual resources except in the far distance, the construction process, has no potential to obscure a scenic view. At a maximum height of 50 feet, the proposed warehouse and commercial buildings would not be so tall as to obstruct public views or otherwise substantially detract from public views of the surrounding topographic features and landforms. In some instances, the landscaping and buildings constructed on the Project site may intermittently obstruct mountain views in the distance as drivers travel immediately adjacent to the Project site along SR-99, Hosking Avenue, Berkshire Road, and South H Street. Single views toward the mountains in the distance across the Project site from these roads typically are of short duration due to travel speeds, and viewer sensitivity is considered low -to -moderate because as the passing landscape becomes familiar, vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists using roadway corridors typically focus their attention on the roadway, roadway signs, and surrounding traffic. Views would remain available to a front -facing viewer on these roads, and the only potential for the Project to intermittently obscure a long-distance view would be if a viewer were to look to their side across the Project site. As such, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic mountain views. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-8 to 4.1-9) Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to aesthetics, the Project will be required to implement the following design feature to further minimize the Project's less than significant effect. bAKF1 6 C31 s„ o ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 AES DF-1. Prior to the approval of building permits and other permits and approvals that authorize construction, the City of Bakersfield shall review the construction documents and plans to assure the following: a. All building paint colors shall have a matte finish. b. All building glass shall be anti -glare or anti -reflective. c. Any photovoltaic panels installed on the property or on building roofs shall be anti -glare or anti -reflective. d. All lighting fixtures shall comply with applicable City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Requirements pertaining to lighting and illumination of buildings, parking areas, and signs. e. The warehouse building truck courts shall be composed of concrete. f. All loading dock areas of the warehouse building shall be screened by a solid perimeter wall on all sides. Any gates visible from a public street shall be of an opaque design. g. All landscaping shall be installed to comply with all applicable City of Bakersfield Municipal Code standards pertaining to perimeter landscaping and minimum shade cover. B. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Threshold "b") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: There are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within the Project site's immediate vicinity. Additionally, there are no rock outcroppings or known historic buildings in the vicinity of the Project site. Thus, implementation of the Project would result in no impacts associated with views from a State scenic highway. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9) C. In non -urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 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 area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Census - defined Bakersfield urbanized area. Because the Project site is located in an area that meets the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of an "urbanized area" and is planned for urban uses by the City's General Plan, the evaluation in the DEIR focuses on the Project's compatibility with or potential conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10) r ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality during construction or operation. The Project has no reasonable possibility of conflicting with the City's lighting standards contained in Municipal Code Sections 17.71.010 through 17.71.080, Outdoor Lighting, standards for the illumination of signs contained in Municipal Code Section 17.60.060, and standards for the illumination of parking lots contained in Municipal Code Section 17.58.060. The Project has no reasonable possibility of conflicting with the City's Municipal Code standards pertaining to visual blight, codified in Municipal Code Sections 8.27.010 (Property Maintenance), 8.80.010 (Abatement of Public Nuisances), and 12.40.050 (Inspection and Removal [of Trees]). In reviewing the application materials submitted by the Project Applicant for Site Plan Review No. 21-0185, the materials appear to meet all applicable Municipal Code requirements including but not limited to the following items pertaining to visual screening. There are no components of the proposed design based on the conceptual design that would conflict with the PCD Exclusive zoning standards pertaining to aesthetics. An Urban Decay Analysis was prepared for the commercial component of the Project, which found that the potential for the Project to cause physical urban decay is found to be a less than significant impact. The Project site is located east of SR-99, south of Berkshire Road, west of South H Street, and north of Hosking Avenue, and the developer(s) of the Project would install landscaping along all of these street frontages concurrent with construction of the Project. Along the Project site's frontage with Berkshire Road, the Project Applicant would be responsible for dedicating right-of-way and improving the road to include 45 feet of total right-of-way on the south side of the centerline, including 34 feet of pavement and an 11-foot parkway inclusive of a new 7-foot- wide sidewalk and 4 feet of landscaping. Along the Project site's frontage with South H Street and extending beyond the frontage continuing between the southeast corner of the Project site to the intersection of South H Street and Hosking Avenue, the Project Applicant would be responsible for dedicating right-of-way and ensuring dedication of right-of-way by the off -site property owner to the south of the Project site to widen and improve South H Street to provide a minimum of 55 feet of right- of-way on the west side of the centerline, with additional widening as South H Street approaches and meets the Hosking Avenue intersection. As part of the Project's implementation, new street lighting would be installed along the Project site's frontages with Berkshire Road and South H Street. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11 to 4.1-16) D. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Threshold "d") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Sections 17.71.010 to 17.71.080, "Outdoor Lighting," would ensure that the Project's pole -mounted and building -mounted light fixtures would not introduce any design features that would cause artificial light or glare to extents that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As part of City review and approval of Site Plan Review No. 21-0185 and the review of implementing plans for construction in any area of the Project site, City staff is obligated to assure that the lighting plans meet all applicable Municipal Code standards. Based on the Project's lighting plans and mandatory requirement to comply with the Municipal Code, lighting impacts would be less than significant. With respect to glare, a majority of the Project's building materials would consist of painted tilt -up concrete panels. The paint colors proposed for the Project have a matte finish and would not produce glare, although the buildings would 8 M 90RIGINAL� Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 incorporate some glass elements. While window glazing has a potential to result in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect daytime views experienced from surrounding properties, including motorists along adjacent roadways, because the glass proposed for the Project is low - reflective, blue glass. Also, the Project's conceptual landscaping plan calls for the perimeter of the site to be landscaped, inclusive of perimeter trees with a continuous canopy which would filter light from the surrounding street system and limit the ability for vehicle headlights on public streets to directly shine onto any glass building elements. Thus, glare impacts from proposed building elements and parking surfaces would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-16 to 4.1-17) 2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources A. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Threshold "a") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: According to information available from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the entire Project site is designated as Grazing Land. Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) located on the Project site. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to directly or indirectly convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. (IS, p. 10 / DEIR, p. 5-4) B. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Threshold "b") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: According to the California Department of Conservation, the Project site is not located on land that is subject to a Williamson Act contract. Under existing conditions, the Project site is zoned Regional Commercial -Planned Commercial Development Combining (C-2/PCD). As such, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No land zoned for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract lands are located near the Project site. Based on the foregoing, the Project has no potential to impact lands zoned for agricultural use or conflict with any Williamson Act contracts. (IS, p. 10 / DEIR, p. 5-5) C. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (Threshold "c") Finding: No Impact OAKF 9 �- m 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project FIndinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located on lands designated as forest lands, timberlands, or Timber Production by the City's General Plan, and none of the surrounding properties are designated as forest lands or timberlands. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g)). (IS, p. 10 / DEIR, p. 5-5) D. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? (Threshold "d") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located on or near forest land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of any forest land or convert forest land to non -forest use. (IS, p. 10 / DEIR, p. 5-5) E. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "e") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located on or near lands designated Farmland or forest land. There is no Farmland, forest land, or timberland near the Project site. As such, the proposed Project has no potential to 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. (IS, p. 10 / DEIR, p. 5-5) 2.2.3 Air Quality A. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Threshold "d") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because the Project includes only warehouse and shopping center land uses, and because the anticipated activities for the Project site are not a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not reasonably expected to be a source of objectionable odors. Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD's GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source. (DEIR, p. 4.2-39) 10 s m 'ORIG NAL' Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact 2.2.4 Biological Resources SCH No. 2022030196 A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold "b") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present on the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. (DEIR, p. 4.3-11) B. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Threshold "c") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because no wetlands or potential waters of the U.S., or potential waters of the State are present on the Project site; the proposed Project has no potential to have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (DEIR, p. 4.3-11) C. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Threshold "d") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is surrounded by roads, urban development, and parcels formerly in agricultural use. Due to surrounding development, the Project site does not serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Because the Project site is an isolated and relatively small parcel of disturbed annual grassland habitat, the site is not conducive to serve as, interfere substantially with or impede, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. (DEIR, p. 4.3-11) D. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Threshold „e») Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: There are no biological resources on the Project site which are separately protected by local policies. (DEIR, p. 4.3-12) 11 �ORIGINO Malesflc Gateway Project Findings of Fact 2.2.5 Cultural Resources SCH No. 2022030196 A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold "a") . Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Although the remnants of a historic period single-family residence were noted in the Project area, this resource was previously determined ineligible for listing on the CRHR and NRHP. Other identified structural remains, including an abandoned reservoir or drainage basin and well, are either modern or their age cannot be ascertained. As such, these resources do not meet OHP guidelines to be considered historically significant. Therefore, because no historic resources exist on the Project site, implementation of the Project has no potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (DEIR, p. 4.4-13) 2.2.6 Energy A. Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Threshold "a") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Energy use associated with the proposed Project would be consumed in the form of fuel (diesel and gasoline), electricity and natural gas. During construction there would be a temporary consumption of energy resources required for the movement of equipment and materials. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand during the Project's construction to the extent feasible, and Project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Energy use during Project construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment; however, minimal electricity used during Project construction is expected to be de minimis. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15) Once constructed, the proposed Project would also use energy resources for the operation of the warehouse and commercial buildings (electricity and natural gas), and for on -road vehicle trips (gasoline and diesel fuel). Compared to the CEC's Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, the Project's estimated increase in fuel consumption would constitute an approximate 0.006% increase in total annual fuel energy consumption within Kern County. Similarly, compared to the CEC's 2020 County -wide data set, the Project's estimated increase in electricity and natural gas consumption would constitute approximately 0.049% and 0.008% increase, respectively, in total annual consumption within the County. As such, Project activities would have a minimal effect on the local and regional fuel energy supplies and availability. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a potential impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15) 12 o�$AK,q s � m r 9ORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Based on comments received on the DEIR, several mitigation measures and project design feature requirements were revised and added to the FEIR that will reduce fossil fuel energy consumption. In particular, GHG MM-7 was revised to require the rooftops of all proposed buildings to contain a maximally sized solar photovoltaic system (FEIR, p. F-15). Although no calculation was performed to quantify the fossil fuel energy use reduction for this and other features and requirements added to the project as part of the FEIR, the impact to energy is nonetheless less than significant. B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Threshold "b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: At this time, the City has not adopted local programs or policies that support energy efficiency and/or sustainability that would apply to the Project. The Project's mobile equipment and vehicles would comply with federal, state, and regional requirements where applicable. As applicable, the Project would utilize the best available equipment to improve diesel fuel efficiency, and equipment that uses energy would implement modern design and technology to maximize efficiency improvements. The Project is expected to have a de minimis effect on local population growth and would continue implementing existing rules and conform with fleet turnover, further reducing the Project's fuel energy consumption overtime. In summary, the Project construction and operations activities would not result in significant increase in energy consumption over the existing environmental baseline and would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-15 to 4.5-16) 2.2.7 Geology and Soils A. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving (Threshold "a"): Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recentAlquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project site and the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project site, the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. (DEIR, p. 4.6-7) 13 �gAKFq o cl� f- m OORONAL� Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 The Project site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project Applicant would be required to construct the proposed building(s) in accordance with the California Building Code, which provides standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the California Building Code requires development projects to prepare geologic engineering reports to identify site -specific geologic and seismic conditions and implement the site -specific recommendations contained therein to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground -shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The Project Applicant retained a professional geotechnical firm, Krazan & Associates, to prepare a geotechnical report for the Project site. This geotechnical report complies with the requirements of the California Building Code. With mandatory compliance with building code standards and site -specific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8) Due to the observed soil characteristics on the Project site and the lack of shallow groundwater beneath the site, liquefaction potential is considered to be low. Regardless, the City of Bakersfield would require the Project site be developed in accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the California Building Code to minimize potential liquefaction hazards. In addition, the Project would be required by the City of Bakersfield to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical report for the Project site to further reduce the risk of seismic -related ground failure due to liquefaction. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic -related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8) The Project site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. There are no hillsides or steep slopes on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project site's geotechnical report would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on -site and abutting off -site areas. With mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report, the Project would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 to 4.6-9) B. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Threshold "b» ) Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact 14 '- OORIGINAI ' MaJesfic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State's General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction -related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution — including erosion/sedimentation — is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro -seeding. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project's implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9) Upon Project build -out, the Project site would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and be filtered into the ground by the proposed on -site retention basin. Accordingly, the amount of erosion that occurs on the Project site would be minimized upon build out of the Project and would be reduced relative to existing conditions. Because the Project would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, impacts related to post -development soil erosion would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9) C. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is relatively flat and no substantial natural or man- made slopes are located on or adjacent to the Project site. Because the Project would be engineered for long-term stability and constructed in accordance with the site -specific recommendations contained within the Project's geotechnical report, impacts associated with landslide hazards would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) The geotechnical report prepared for the Project site indicated that the settlement potential can be attenuated through the excavation of fill soils so that native soils can be properly prepared. The City will condition implementing development to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project's geotechnical report. With mandatory compliance with the Project's geotechnical report, impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) is 'ORIGNAL� Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. Based on the Project site's lack of shallow groundwater, liquefaction on the Project site is considered to be low. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading is low. Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) D. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "d") Finding: Less -than Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Expansion index tests were performed by Krazan on the upper soils of the Project site to determine the expansive characteristics and to provide any necessary recommendations for reinforcement of the slabs -on -grade and the foundations. The upper soils at the site are low (Expansion Index = 21-50) in expansion potential. As such, the Project would not be located on expansive soil and would not create substantial risks to life or property; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) E. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "e") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Wastewater service for the Project site is provided by the Bakersfield Department of Public Works (BDPW), Wastewater Division and no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) 2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions A. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Threshold "b") Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with the State's ability to achieve the Statewide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of the Project would not actively interfere with any future federally-, State-, or locally -mandated retrofit obligations (such as requirements to use new technologies such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades to a higher tier equipment, etc.) enacted or promulgated to legally require development projects to assist in meeting State -adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those established under EO 5-3- 05, EO B-30-15, or SB 32. For these reasons, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (DEIR, p. 4.7-23) 16 O,_0N �pRIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials A. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Threshold "c") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because there are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25- mile of the Project site, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (DEIR, p. 4.8-10) B. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Threshold "d") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because the Project site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Project has no potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (DEIR, p. 4.8-10) C. 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? (Threshold "e") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because the Project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or a private airstrip, there is no potential for implementation of the Project to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. (DEIR, p. 4.8-10) D. Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold f„) Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the 17 � BAKF 0 9 ~ T rL ORIGINA Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. As part of the City's discretionary review process, the City of Bakersfield reviewed the Project's application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to - and -from the Project site and that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the Kern County Operational Area Hazardous Materials Area Plan to ensure compliance with established procedures, rules, and regulations for emergency responses in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. (DEIR, p. 4.8-11) E. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Threshold "g") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Neither Cal Fire nor the City of Bakersfield identify the Project site within an area susceptible to wildland fires and the Project site and surrounding areas generally consist of commercial, industrial, and/or residential uses, which are generally not associated with wildland fire hazards. Because the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.8-11) 2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Threshold "a") B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Threshold "e") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding_ Pursuant to the requirements of the Central Valley RWQCB and Chapter 15.05 (California Building Code) of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the WQCP. Compliance with the NPDES Permit and the WQCP involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction - related activities, including grading. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. (DEIR, p. 4.9-8) ,:bp,KF,� 18 o s� m } r 00ftIGINP'V Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 All runoff generated on the Project site would be treated by the proposed on -site water quality/retention basin, which would provide water quality treatment of storm water prior to infiltration of the runoff into the on -site soils. Additionally, the City of Bakersfield along with the County of Kern adopted a Storm Water Management Plan. The Commercial and Industrial Element of the Storm Water Management Plan establishes measures to control potential pollutants from ongoing operations in that category of land use. Accordingly, during operation of the proposed Project, the City's program for "best conventional pollutant control technology" would be in effect. This includes site inspections by City personnel and enforcement of vegetation, sediment, and debris that may accumulate in retention/detention basins. With implementation of the proposed water quality/retention basin and compliance with the Storm Water Management Plan, long-term operation of the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, and the Project would not conflict with the Storm Water Management Plan requirements. DEIR, pp. 4.9-9 to 4.9-10) Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to hydrology and water quality, the Project will be required to implement the following regulatory requirements and design feature to further minimize the Project's less than significant effect. HYD RR-1. The Project Applicant and construction contractor are required to comply with the requirements of a NPDES permit, and SWPPP. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the SWPPP require an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate discharges to surface water from storm water and non-stormwater discharges during construction activities. HYD RR-2. During construction, Project construction contractors are required to comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) or any subsequent version of the Title 24 in effect at the time of building permit issuance, which requires among other items the installation of low water -use features. HYD DF-3. A water quality/retention basin that meets the sizing requirements for a S-day/IOyr storm event, for both the warehouse distribution and commercial components of the Project, shall be installed in the west -central portion of the Project site and shall be operational prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit for the Project. The sizing parameters are specified in a Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the Project by Cornerstone Engineering, dated March 24, 2022, and included as EIR Technical Appendix H. C. Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Threshold "b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact <O.PKFa 19 c '% � r ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findinsas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding_ No operating groundwater wells occur on the Project site under existing conditions, and no wells are proposed as part of the Project. Existing inactive wells would be removed or capped as part of the Project's construction, although there is the potential they could be used as a temporary source of water during the construction process for dust control. As such, the Project would not result in the direct long-term extraction of groundwater supplies. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10) The Project would be served with potable water by the Greenfield County Water District (GCWD). The GCWD's sole water supply source is groundwater. Greenfield CWD does not purchase potable water from any other source; however, they do purchase Kern Island Canal "seepage" water from the Kern Delta Water District. That supply is characterized in the GCWD's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) as seepage that "passes through GCWD's service area and becomes groundwater". Additionally, GCWD does not use surface, storm, waste, recycled, or desalinated water. Per the UWMP, the GCWD also does not enter into water exchanges or transfers from other water suppliers for direct use. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10) The GCWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) forecasts 9,722 acre-feet of reliable supply for a normal year, single -year drought, and multi -year drought in 5-year increments over a 20- year planning period, which is nearly three times the forecasted water demand over the planning period, even accounting for the Project's increase in water demand. Similarly, the KRGSA Groundwater Sustainability Plan estimates groundwater safe yield combined with other sources of supply and supplemental supply projects which combined "fully mitigate potential future overdraft". Accordingly, because the GCWD would have adequate groundwater supplies to serve the Project, and because the actions to be undertaken pursuant to the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Plan, the Project's water demand would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10) With implementation of the proposed Project, runoff generated on the site would be conveyed to the proposed on -site water quality/retention basin, where the runoff would infiltrate into the on -site soils. Because runoff from the Project site would be captured to allow infiltration into on -site soils, the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-10) D. Would the Project 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 (Threshold "c"): i. Result in 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 off site? iii. Create or contribute runoff 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? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact 20 o�OPK��s� r r `�cJFIGINA� Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: With implementation of the Proj ect's water quality/retention basin and implementation of a SWPPP during construction activities, Project impacts to water quality, including erosion and siltation, during both construction and long-term operation would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11) All runoff generated on the Project site would be conveyed to the proposed on -site water quality/retention basin, where the runoff would be allowed to infiltrate into on -site soils. There would be no runoff from the Project site following site development. As such, the Project has no potential to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site, and the Project would not create runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11) FEMA FIRM Map Number 06029C2300E, which includes the Project site, indicates that the Project area is in "Zone X", an area of minimal flooding. The portion of the City of Bakersfield in which the Project site is located has never experienced flooding in the modern era. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9- 11) E. Would the Project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Threshold "d") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: FEMA FIRM Map Number 06029C2300E, which includes the Project site, indicates that the Project area is in "Zone X", an area of minimal flooding. The portion of the City of Bakersfield in which the Project site is located has never experienced flooding in the modern era. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11) There are no enclosed or semi -enclosed bodies of water in proximity to the Project site other than the Kern Island Canal which would not be subject to seiches because it is not a large water body. Accordingly, the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation from seiches, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11) The Project site is located approximately 67 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. As such, the Project site is not subject to inundation due to tsunamis. Accordingly, the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation from seiches, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-11) 2.2.11 Land Use and Planning A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (Threshold "a") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not directly, physically connected to any established community. Residential communities are located to the east of the Project site and east of 21 a OORIGINAI. MaJestic Gateway Protect Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 South H Street. The residential communities are separated from the Project site by South H Street, the Kern Island Canal, and a solid concrete wall. Residential communities are also located west of the Project site and immediately west of SR-99. These residential communities are separated from the Project site by SR-99. Because the Project site is already physically separated from neighboring developed properties under existing conditions, development of the Project site as proposed would not physically divide any established community. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-5 to 4.10-6) The Project would connect to the existing roadway system and other infrastructure and would not involve the reconfiguration of streets that could have the potential to alter the surrounding pattern of future development and affect the connectivity of existing residential uses located to the east of the Project site and east of South H Street, or to the west of the Project site and immediately west of SR- 99. (DEIR, p. 4.10-6) 2.2.12 Mineral Resources A. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "a") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The principal mineral resources extracted within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are oil, natural gas, sand, and gravel. Areas used for sand and gravel extraction are concentrated primarily along the floodplain and alluvial fan of the Kern River, which is an important resource for construction, development, and other improvements. Because of the Project's location away from any alluvial fans and the Kern River, it is unlikely that the Project site would contain sand and gravel that would be considered a valuable commodity; therefore, there would be no impact to aggregate resources. In addition, the region is a major oil -producing area, with substantial oil and gas fields existing within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. However, according to the California Geologic Energy Management Division (Cal -GEM) there are no known oil, gas, or injection wells located within the boundaries of the Project site (Cal -GEM, 2021). Therefore, the proposed 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. (IS, pp. 17 to 18 / DEIR, pp. 5-5 to 5-6) B. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "b") Finding: No Impact Facts in SUport of Finding: The Project site is not identified as a locally -important mineral resources recovery site by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) or any other land use plan. As such, the Project would not 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. (IS, p. 18 / DEIR, p. 5-6) ONKF? 22 � m r 0 4PORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact 2.2.13 Noise SCH No. 2022030196 A. Would the Project result in 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 plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Threshold "a") Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below evaluate three components of the Project that would generate noise — the construction process, on -site operational activities, and off -site traffic. Construction Noise Project -related construction noise would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction. Noise generated by the Project's construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. (DEIR, p. 4.11-14) Project -related construction noise levels are expected to range from 53.3 to 68.9 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 60.3 to 68.9 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. To evaluate whether the proposed Project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at the nearest receiver locations, a construction -related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities. Therefore, the direct noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations. (DEIR, p. 4.11-16) The noise levels associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 49.0 to 57.6 dBA Leq. This includes the additional noise attenuation provided by the existing noise barriers. The analysis shows that the unmitigated nighttime concrete pour activities would satisfy the FTA 70 dBA Leq nighttime residential noise level threshold at all of the nearest noise sensitive receiver locations. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-17) On -Site Operational Noise The on -site Project -related noise sources are expected to include but not be limited to: outdoor loading dock activity, roof -top air conditioning units, drive -through speakerphone activity, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements. (DEIR, p. 4.11-17) The operational noise levels associated with the proposed Project would satisfy the City of Bakersfield daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards. Therefore, the operational noise impacts would be less than significant at the nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations. The Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 1.8 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. The Project would generate nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 1.2 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Because the Project -related operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria, the increases at the sensitive receiver locations would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-20) p� gAKF9 c� r 23 ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Protect Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Off -Site Traffic Noise The scenario in which Project traffic is added to existing traffic volumes would not actually occur, as both the commercial and distribution warehouse components of the Project would not be fully constructed and operated until 2029 conditions. Thus, this scenario is provided for information purposes only in order to fully analyze all of the traffic scenarios identified in the Project's Traffic Study. With the addition of Project traffic to existing traffic levels, Project off -site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 2.7 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off -site traffic noise, existing sensitive land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience noise level increases that are below the identified thresholds of significance. While the analysis shows that Berkshire Road west of S. H Street (Segment #13) would experience a noise level increase of 2.7 dBA CNEL, the land to the south is represented by the Project and the land to the north is vacant and is owned by Kaiser Permanente for possible medical facility development. Therefore, the off -site traffic noise level increase of 2.7 dBA CNEL on Berkshire Road west of S. H Street (Segment #13) is not considered a significant noise level impact since there are no existing adjacent noise sensitive receivers that would experience this increase. As such, Project -related traffic noise impacts under Existing with Project conditions would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-23) The Project off -site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 2.5 dBA CNEL under 2024 traffic conditions. The Project off -site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 2.4 dBA CNEL under 2029 traffic conditions. The Project off -site traffic noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 2.4 dBA CNEL under 2042 traffic conditions. Based on the significance criteria for off - site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience noise level increases due to the unmitigated Project -related traffic noise levels that are below the identified thresholds of significance under 2024, 2029, and 2042 traffic conditions. While the analysis shows that Berkshire Road west of S. H Street (Segment #13) would experience noise level increases ranging from 2.5 dBA CNEL under 2024 conditions to 2.4 dBA CNEL under 2029 and 2042 conditions, the land to the south is represented by the Project and the land to the north is vacant and is owned by Kaiser Permanente for possible medical facility development. Therefore, the off -site traffic noise level increase of 2.4 dBA CNEL on Berkshire Road west of S. H Street (Segment #13) is not considered a significant noise level impact since there are no existing adjacent noise sensitive receivers that will experience this increase over time. As such, Project -related traffic noise impacts under 2024, 2029, and 2042 traffic conditions would be less than significant. (DEIR. Pp. 4.11-23 to 4.11-28) B. Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Threshold "b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: At distances ranging from 187 to 1,447 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.004 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels would fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project -related vibration impacts are considered less 24 o�gAKF"�ci' a `ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. (DEIR, p. 4.11-28) 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? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because the Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to a private airstrip, airport land use plan or public airport our public use airport. (DEIR, p. 4.11-29) 2.2.14 Population and Housing A. Would the Project 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)? (Threshold "a") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Applicant expects that that the proposed warehouse building operator would employ up to 1,200 persons, assuming the building operates on three shifts per day, and the commercial component of the project would generate up to approximately 300 jobs using a factor of 600 s.f. of building space per employee (187,500 s.f. of building space - 600 s.f./employee = 312 jobs). This information provided by the Project Applicant for the warehouse building is consistent with average employment density factors provided in a Commercial Real Estate Development Association (formerly National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP)) research study titled "Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space." (DEIR, p. 4.12-5) The Project's labor demand is not expected to draw substantial numbers of new, unplanned residents to the area. The proposed Project would provide job opportunities closer to home for existing and future residents in the nearby area, which would subsequently help achieve a better job -to -housing balance. Also, the Project would help to diversify job opportunities in the area. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project is not expected to be a catalyst for any substantial, unplanned population increase. There are no components of the proposed Project that would remove obstacles to development in the local area (and result in indirect unplanned population growth). (DEIR, p. 4.12-6) The proposed Project would connect to site -adjacent existing and planned infrastructure and would not construct new infrastructure or increase the capacity of existing infrastructure. Therefore, �OAK�c2 25 o s� ►- m OORIGINAL' Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 none of the proposed Project's physical improvements would remove any development obstacles/barriers and that could result in unplanned growth. Based on the foregoing analysis, neither the proposed Project or any Project -related component would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth that would cause a significant impact to the environment. (DEIR, p. 4.12-6) B. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Threshold "b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Because no housing units exist on the Project site, the Project would not directly displace people or housing units and thus there would be no need to construct replacement housing elsewhere. (DEIR, p. 4.12-7) Based on Kern COG's Draft 6th Cycle RHNA Plan for the planning period of June 2023- December 2031, which was released for public review on April 22, 2022, the City of Bakersfield needs to plan for an additional 37,461 housing units, with 18,211 units in the very -low and low-income categories and 19,250 units in the moderate and above -moderate income categories for the planning period through year 2031. As such, there is adequate planning for housing needs in the City across all income categories, including for the accommodation of any residents that may decide to move from their current house to a different house. There is no evidence to suggest that the Project would cause substantial numbers of people to decide to move, and trigger the need for new unplanned housing to be built elsewhere to accommodate those households, particularly in light of the City already planning to accommodate 37,461 housing units (based on Kern COG's Draft 6th Cycle RHNA Plan) through year 2031. Indirect impacts related to the speculative potential of replacement housing would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-7) 2.2.15 Public Services A. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Fire Protection (Threshold "a.i") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through joint implementation measures between the Metropolitan City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. The nearest fire station is the Kern County Fire Department, Station 52 (Greenfield), at 312 Taft Highway, approximately 1.4 miles southeast from the Project site. Other nearby stations are Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD) Station No. 13, located approximately 1.7 miles to the west, and BFD Station No. 5, located approximately 2.4 miles to the north. Although the Project site is currently vacant, the site is designated by the City's General Plan for commercial development and is �,�bAKF, 26 90RIGINAL� Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 planned to be served by existing fire stations. A new fire station of physical alteration of existing fire stations would not be needed to serve the Project. (IS, p. 19 / DEIR, p. 5-6) B. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Police Protection (Threshold "a.ii") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Police protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through joint implementation measures between the Metropolitan City of Bakersfield and Kern County. The Project's development would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services, but is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. The nearest first response police station is located at 1601 Truxton Avenue, which is approximately 5.8 miles from the Project site. Due to the proximity of existing police stations, the Project would not cause the need for the physical construction of a new police station or require physical alteration of an existing station. (IS, p. 19 / DEIR, p. 5-7) C. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Schools (Threshold "a.iii") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project would not physically affect schools. The Project would provide employment opportunities in the area; however, the proposed uses would not require a highly specialized labor force and are likely to draw employees from the existing population. Therefore, the Project is unlikely to attract into the area a substantial number of new workers with children that would require school services. Although the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, the entities that implement development on the Project site would be required to contribute development impact fees to the Greenfield Union Elementary and Kern High School Districts in compliance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. (IS, p. 19 / DEIR, pp. 5-7 to 5-8) D. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause 27 �! a- Fn 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks (Threshold "a. iv") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would result in a demand for parkland resources, and no recreational facilities are proposed as part of the Project. Thus, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered recreational facilities, or due to the need for new or physically altered recreational 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 and recreational resources. (IS, p. 19 / DEIR, p. 5-8) E. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Other Public Facilities (Threshold "a. v") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would not directly substantially increase the residential population in the City and therefore is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, and animal shelters. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities. (IS, p. 19 / DEIR, p. 5-8) 2.2.16 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? (Threshold "a") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not involve any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. (IS, p. 20 / DEIR, p. 5-9) 28 a- in OORIGINALr Males is Gateway Protect Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 B. Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Threshold 'b") Finding: No Impact Facts in Sport of Finding: The Project does not involve the construction of any new on- or off -site recreation facilities. The Project would not expand any existing off -site recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. (IS, p. 20 / DEIR, p. 5-9) 2.2.17 Transportation A. Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Threshold "a") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Although the Project is not consistent with the site's existing General Plan land use designation of "General Commercial (GC)," the Project Applicant is proposing General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC) No. 21-0184 to change the land use designation on ±55.65 acres from GC to "Light Industrial (LI)." With approval of GPA/ZC No. 21-0184, the Project would be fully consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. (DEIR, p. 4.13-5) As indicated in the Project's TIA, although the Project would contribute to projected LOS deficiencies and the need for signalization of study area facilities, the Project would be conditioned to construct improvements, pay fees pursuant to the City's Transportation Impact Fee ("TIF"; Chapter 15.84 of the City's Municipal Code), and pay fair -share contributions towards improvements not included in any existing fee programs. The improvements to be constructed as part of the Project, as part of the City's TIF programs, or as the result of Project fair -share contributions would ensure that the Project is fully consistent with the General Plan Circulation. Element policies related to streets and roadways. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6) No new bus stops are required along the Project site's frontage with Hosking Avenue. The Project would not conflict with any of the goals or policies identified in the General Plan Circulation Element related to transit. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-6 to 4.13-7) The Project Applicant has committed to install one new bus stop along Berkshire Road and one new bus stop along South H Street (FEIR TRN DF- 6). According to the Bikeway Master Plan included in the General Plan Circulation Element, no bicycle facilities are planned along the Project site's frontage with Hosking Avenue, while a "Class 3 (Bike Route)" is planned along the Project site's frontage with South H Street. This designation also is consistent with the Kern County 2012 Bicycle Master Plan. Appropriate signage along the Project site's frontage would be installed in conjunction with Project improvements to South H Street. Additionally, all roadway improvements proposed as part of the Project would be in full compliance �gAKF, 29 � fft 90RIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 with the City of Bakersfield "Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Plan." Accordingly, the Project would be fully consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies related to bikeways. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7) The Project would not conflict with any of the goals or policies included in the General Plan Circulation Element related to parking. The warehouse distribution portion of the Project is required to accommodate a total of 495 passenger vehicle parking spaces, while a total of 740 passenger vehicle parking spaces are provided. Although based on a conceptual design for the commercial component of the Project, 1,236 passenger vehicle parking spaces are shown in the conceptual design, and the actual number of parking spaces to be provided for the commercial component of the Project will be assured by the City through verification of compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.58.110 "Parking Space Requirements by Land Use" when a final commercial development plan is considered by the City Council at a future date. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7) The Project site is located outside of the compatibility zones for the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, indicating the Project site is not subject to airport -related hazards. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to conflict with the General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies related to airports. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7) With respect to the City's Municipal Code, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Municipal Code Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic). Specifically, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute transportation impact fees pursuant to Chapter 15.84 of the City's Municipal Code (Transportation Impact Fee) to help provide for acceptable LOS within the City. Project -related roadway improvements also would be required to comply with Chapter 10.12 (Traffic -Control Devices) of the City's Municipal Code, which requires the City to provide for orderly and safe traffic conditions within the City and to have installed and maintained such signals and other devices as may be necessary to effectively carry out such purposes. There are no components of the proposed Project that would conflict with any of the provisions of Municipal Code Title 10. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7) Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-8) B. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: All of the proposed roadway improvements would be implemented in a manner consistent with Chapter 13.12 (Development Improvements Standards and Specifications) of the City's Municipal Code, which requires compliance with a number of standard manuals. The purposes of Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 are intended to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City by establishing standards and specifications related to a number of OAKF� 30 81 d-cr >- rn a-- r— OORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 public improvements, including roadway improvements. With respect to heavy truck movements, the Project's application materials include exhibits demonstrating that Project driveways as well as intersections that would be improved as part of the Project have adequate turning capacity to accommodate large trucks. Additionally, the Project's proposed improvements have been reviewed by the City for compliance with the provisions of Chapter 13.12, and have determined that the Project's proposed improvements are in full compliance with the City's requirements as well as Municipal Code Chapter 13.12. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10 to 4.13-11) Traffic associated with the Project's proposed commercial retail land uses would be consistent with both existing and planned commercial development in the area, as well as with existing residential neighborhoods to the east of the Project site. With respect to the proposed warehouse building, according to the Project's TIA, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 580 truck trips per day, including 18 truck trips during the morning peak hour and 24 truck trips during the evening peak hour. Although truck trips associated with the Project have the potential to conflict with traffic from nearby commercial retail and residential uses, the Project's TIA indicates that 100% of truck trips heading to and from the Project site would access SR-99 via South H Street and Hosking Avenue. The main entrances for the existing residential developments to the east, northeast, and southeast are along Berkshire Road and Hosking Avenue, east of South H Street. Thus, Project truck traffic would be directed directly to SR-99 and would be directed away from residential streets, and would only intermix with residential -related traffic along a short segment of Hosking Avenue between South H Street and the on- and off -ramps for SR-99. The Project would not result in increased hazards to transportation on Caltrans facilities as a result of incompatible uses, and impacts due to incompatible uses would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11) C. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (Threshold "d") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: During construction of the proposed Project, Project construction contractors would be required to maintain adequate emergency access routes on site. Additionally, the Project's plans have been reviewed by the Bakersfield Fire Department (BFD), which has determined that the Project's design would provide for adequate access for emergency vehicles under long-term operations. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to the requirements of Section 15.65.190 (Appendix D, Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates — Amended), which identifies requirements associated with emergency access. Accordingly, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-13) 2.2.18 Utilities and Services Systems A. Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Threshold "a") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact 31 ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below address the Project's potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Water Service and Facilities As part of the proposed Project, 6- to 8-inch water lines would be constructed on site, which would connect directly to the existing water lines within Berkshire Road and South H Street. In addition, a 56-foot diameter by 37'/z-foot high water tank with pump house is proposed near the southwestern portion of the warehouse facility to service the warehouse and provide adequate fire flow. Impacts associated with the construction of Project -related water facilities are inherent to the Project's construction phase. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the Project's proposed water improvements. As such, with the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, Project impacts due to water improvements would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-10) Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Facilities As part of the Project, a series of sewer lines measuring between 6 to 8 inches in size would be constructed on site. Sewer flows from the northwest portions of the Project site would connect to the existing 12-inch sewer main within Berkshire Road, while sewer flows from the northeast and southern portions of the Project site would connect to the existing 15-inch sewer line within South H Street. Based on the Project's Sewer Capacity Study, the existing sewer facilities have adequate capacity to handle sewer flows generated by the Project, and the Project would not require any expansion of the existing off -site sewer facilities. Impacts associated with the construction of Project -related sewer facilities are inherent to the Project's construction phase. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the Project's proposed sewer improvements. As such, with the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, Project impacts due to sewer improvements would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-10) Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to the Bakersfield Department of Public Works (BDPW) WTP No. 3, which has a total capacity of 32 mgd and currently receives flows of approximately 17.8 mgd. Based on the Project's Sewer Capacity Study, the Project is expected to generate an average of 132,000 gallons per day (gpd), with peak daily flows estimated at 243,000 gpd. The Project's peak daily wastewater generation would represent only a small fraction (1.7%) of the total 14.2 mgd excess daily wastewater treatment capacity at BDPW WTP No. 3. Accordingly, no expansion to the BDPW WTP No. 3 would be required to serve the Project, and no impacts would occur associated with wastewater treatment capacity. (DEIR, p. 4.15-11) Stormwater Drainage Facilities As part of the Project's construction, the existing drainage pattern on the site would be altered and managed by an on -site stormwater drainage system. Storm drain facilities would include curbs, gutters, inlets, underground pipes, and a surface retention basin. The proposed retention basin that also would serve water quality functions is proposed in the west -central portion of the Project site between SR-99 and the proposed warehouse building. The basin would jointly serve the commercial development and the warehouse development for storm water and water quality purposes. The retention basin is designed to Kern County standards (which are more conservative (strict) than City �AKF� 32 > Fn OORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 standards), requiring the basin to have capacity for a 5-day/10-year storm event. The capacity of the retention basin meets this requirement. With installation of the retention basin, there would be adequate capacity in downstream storm drainage facilities to accommodate runoff generated on site, with no off - site improvements required for drainage facility capacity. Impacts associated with the construction of Project -related drainage facilities are inherent to the Project's construction phase. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the Project's proposed drainage improvements. As such, with the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, Project impacts due to drainage improvements would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-11) Dry Utilities Electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities are available within roadways abutting the Project site. Connections to these facilities would be made along the Project's frontages with abutting roadways. The existing overhead lines along South H Street adjacent to the Project's frontage would be undergrounded concurrent with the Project's construction. Impacts associated with the construction of Project -related utilities are inherent to the Project's construction phase. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the Project's proposed utility improvements. As such, with the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, Project impacts due to utility improvements would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.15-11 to 4.15-12) Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Although the Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to utilities and service systems, the Project will be required to implement the following regulatory requirements to further minimize the Project's less than significant effect. UTL RR-1. During construction, Project construction contractors are required to comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations), which requires among other items the installation of low water -use appliances and requires that a minimum of 65 percent of the solid waste generated by the Project's construction phase be diverted from local landfills. UTL RR-2. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (AB 1327) which requires that an adequate area for collecting and loading recyclable materials over the lifetime of the project be provided. The City of Bakersfield shall ensure the provision of this area prior to the issuance of building permits. UTL RR-3. The Project Applicant, construction contractors, and operators, shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 8.32, Solid Waste/Recyclable Materials/Organic Waste, of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. gPKF,� 33 } m r r d ` OF OCOAL MajesHc Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 UTL RR4. The Project Applicant, construction contractors, and operators, shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 14.02, Water and Sewers, of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. UTL RR-S. The Project Applicant, construction contractors, and operators, shall comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 17.61, Landscape Standards, of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. B. Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (Threshold "b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is estimated to generate a demand for approximately 42.2 million gallons per year (MG/yr) of water, or approximately 129.4 acre-feet per year (AFY). By 2045 the total water demand within the Greenfield County Water District (GCWD) service area is estimated to be 3,410 MG/yr. The GCWD UWMP projects its estimated supply capacity (i.e. 3,168 MG/yr or 9,722 acre-feet per year) to remain constant throughout 2045. Thus, in the year 2045, projected water demand including the Project would be an estimated 4% higher than the projection stated in GCWD's 2020 UWMP. (DEIR, pp. 4.15-12 to 4.15-13) The GCWD UWMP forecasts 9,722 acre-feet of reliable supply for a normal year, single -year drought, and multi -year drought in 5-year increments over a 20-year planning period, which is nearly three times the forecasted water demand over the planning period, even accounting for the Project's increase in water demand. Similarly, the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Plan estimates groundwater safe yield combined with other sources of supply and supplemental supply projects which combined "fully mitigate potential future overdraft." The GCWD has more than adequate groundwater supplies to meet water demand through the year 2045 within its service area, including the added demand associated with the proposed Project. Estimated water demand associated with the proposed Project represents an additional 129.4 AFY demand on the GCWD delivery system. The GCWD's 2020 UWMP forecasts more than adequate groundwater supplies to reliably meet customer demands, including demand associated with the proposed Project, under various drought scenarios, over a 20- year planning period. Accordingly, the GCWD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-14) C. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact OAKF� 34 > fT F- r OORIGINAL' Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: The entire Project would be expected to generate an average of 132,000 gallons of wastewater per day or 0.20 cfs, with peak daily flows of 243,000 gpd or 0.37 cfs. The analysis of the segments of sewer line between the Project site and WTP No. 3 shows that all three segments have excess capacity available to serve the Project under current and future tributary buildout conditions. As such, the existing sewer lines have adequate capacity to convey Project -generated wastewater to WTP No. 3, resulting in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.15-15) The BDPW WTP No. 3 has a total capacity of 32 mgd and currently receives flows of approximately 17.8 mgd. The Project is expected to generate an average of 132,000 gallons per day (gpd), with peak daily flows estimated at 243,000 gpd. The Project's peak daily wastewater generation would represent only a small fraction (1.7%) of the total 14.2 mgd excess daily wastewater treatment capacity at BDPW WTP No. 3. Accordingly, the BDPW WTP No. 3 would have adequate capacity to serve the Project, in addition to its existing and planned commitments. Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project would not result in a determination by the BDPW that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the BDPW's existing commitments, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-15) D. Would the Project 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 reduction goals? (Threshold "d") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below address the Project's solid waste generation. Construction Waste The Project would be required to comply with mandatory waste reduction requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code Section 42911), California's Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and the Chapter 8.32, Refuse, Solid Waste, and Recycling, of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. (DEIR, p. 4.15-15) Waste would be generated by the Project construction process, primarily comprising discarded materials and packaging. The Project's building construction would occur in two phases: Phase 1 for the warehouse building and Phase 2 for the 12 commercial buildings. Based on a total building area of 1,199,685 s.f. and a construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per square foot, approximately 4,392,883 pounds (2,196 tons) of construction waste would be generated during Phase 1 of the Project construction (1,012,185 s.f. x 4.34 pounds/s.f. = 4,392,883 pounds), while approximately 813,750 pounds (407 tons) would be generated during Phase 2 of Project construction (187,500 x 4.34 pounds/s.f. = 813,750 pounds). (DEIR, p. 4.15-15 to 4.15-16) Non -recyclable demolition debris and construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill, which is operated by the Kern County Public Works Department. The Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill has a 35 I m OORIGINAL� Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 permitted daily capacity of 4,500 tpd. The maximum average daily volume of solid waste generated during Project construction (1.75 tpd) would represent only 0.04% of the daily disposal capacity at the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the Project would not generate construction -related solid waste in excess of the existing daily disposal capacity at the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill. Furthermore, the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill is not expected to reach its total maximum permitted disposal capabilities during the Project's construction period. Therefore, during construction the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-16) Operational Waste The combined total of daily waste generated by both the industrial/warehouse portion and the commercial portion of the Project would be 11.5 tons. A minimum of 50% of all solid waste would be required to be recycled pursuant to AB 939, consistent with the State's solid waste reduction goals; therefore, Project operation would generate approximately 5.8 tpd of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. The Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill has a permitted daily capacity of 4,500 tpd. The Project's 5.8 tpd of solid waste would represent only 0.13% of the total daily disposal capacity at this landfill. Because the Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day, as compared to the permitted daily capacity for the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill, it is anticipated that the landfill facility would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project. As such, because the Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Landfill would have adequate capacity to handle solid waste generated by the Project's operational phase, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15 — 17) The Project's long-term solid waste generation also would not be in excess of State or local disposal standards. As indicated above, the Project would be subject to compliance with the provisions of AB 939 to divert a minimum of 50% of solid waste from landfills. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.32, Refuse, Solid Waste, and Recycling, of the City's Municipal Code. Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, and would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15 — 17) E. Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Threshold "e") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be subject to the requirements of CALGreen, including the requirement to divert a minimum of 65 percent of the solid waste generated by the Project's construction phase from local landfills. In addition, and in order to assist the City of Bakersfield in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, under long- term operations the Project's building occupant(s) would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code Section 42911), the Project is required to provide adequate areas for 36 >- m a ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. Further, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occupant(s) of the proposed Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.15-17 to 4.15-18) 2.2.19WiIdfire A. Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold "a") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Further, the Project is not anticipated to physically impede the existing emergency response plans, emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the site. Fire protection services to the Project site are and would continue to be provided by the Kern County Fire Department. The Project site is not identified as part of any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, and the Project has no potential to conflict with any such plans. As such, no impacts to adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. (IS, p. 22 / DEIR, p. 5-9) B. Would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Threshold "b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Further, given the flat topography of the site, it is not anticipated the Project would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors. The Project would result in construction and operation of a warehouse building and several connnercial buildings with exterior impervious surfaces and irrigated landscaping, which would not result in any exacerbation of fire hazards in the local area. Therefore, the Project has no potential to exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby exposing people to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (IS, p. 22 / DEIR, pp. 5-9 to 5-10) C. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "c") gAKF 37 � r ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Protect Findinas of Fact Finding: No Impact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Aside from standard building construction requirements, including the installation of fire sprinklers, the provision of fire hydrants, and the use of irrigated landscaping, the Project does not include any fire protection -related infrastructure that could result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (IS, p. 22 / DEIR, p. 5-10) D. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "d") Finding: No Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The Project site occurs in a portion of the City of Bakersfield that exhibits generally flat topography, and there are no large slopes in the Project vicinity that could be subject to landslide hazards as a result of post -fire slope instability. Additionally, there are no components of the Project that could result in or exacerbate flooding hazards associated with wildland fire hazards. (IS, p. 22 / DEIR, p. 5-10) 2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1). The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: 2.3.1 Air Quality A. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Threshold "a") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: Prior to mitigation the proposed Project would conflict with the AQAP due to emissions of ROG and NOx that exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for these pollutants, and by potentially providing more jobs in the area beyond those projected by the AQAP though 2030. Accordingly, prior to mitigation the proposed Project would conflict with the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be significant on both a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis. (DEIR, p. 4.2-27) 38 s > m � r 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 To ensure that Project operational criteria air pollutant emissions are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure, regulatory requirements, and design features are required. AIR MM-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD. The VERA is an air quality mitigation measure by which a developer can voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with the SJVAPCD to mitigate a development project's impact on air quality. Under the agreement, the developer provides funds to the SJVAPCD to administer the implementation of the VERA. The SJVAPCD then identifies emissions reductions projects, funds those projects, and verifies that the specified emission reductions have been successfully achieved. The SJVAPCD considers implementation of a VERA to be a feasible mitigation measure under CEQA, effectively achieving emission reductions necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The VERA requirements shall include specific terms to reduce the Project's criteria air pollutant emissions to net zero, consistent with the assumptions that were relied upon in the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis to conclude that Project emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less than significant with mitigation. (FEIR, pp. F-12, F-43, F-56, F- 126, F-127, and F-129) AIR RR-4. During construction, all construction contractors shall be subject to compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PMio Prohibitions), including the following requirements. Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to comply with SJVAPCD Regulation M,, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires these items is required on all grading plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. a) Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. b) Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. c) Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. d) Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds ISO vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles. e) Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. f) Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. g) When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions. gAKF? 39 r 0OFIIONAL Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 h) Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). i) Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. j) Remove visible track -out from the site at the end of each workday. k) Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one -hour period). AIR RR-S. Construction contractors and painters shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to comply with Rule 4601, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersf eld staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires compliance is required on all building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. AIR RR-6. All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. The City of Bakersfield shall confirm Title 24 compliance prior to the issuance of building permits. AIR RR-7. Construction contractors shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas. Construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to comply with Rule 4641, and the City of Bakersfield shall confirm Rule 4641 compliance prior to the issuance of permits and approval for paved surfaces. The following are prohibited: a) Rapid cure cutback asphalt; b) Medium cure cutback asphalt; c) Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4). AIR RR-8. In compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review (ISR)), the Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the SJVAPCD, which will identify emission reduction measures for emissions of NOx and PMio. The performance measures listed below can be met through any combination of on -site emission reduction measures or off -site fees. a) Related to construction -related emissions, the exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by the ARB: 20% of the total NOx emissions, and 45% of the total PMIo exhausts emissions. Construction emissions can be reduced by using less polluting construction equipmento�gAK"" 40 UORIGINALrz' Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 which can be achieved by utilizing addon controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment. b) Related to operational emissions, NOx Emissions shall be reduced by 33.3% of the project's operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. PMIo emissions shall be reduced by 50% of the project's operational baseline PMio emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved ALA. AIR RR-9. If any building user occupying the Project site introduces equipment subject to regulation under SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), the owners of such equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD. AIR RR-10. If any building user occupying the Project site introduces equipment subject to JVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), the owners of such equipment are required to requires the review of new and modified Stationary Sources of air pollution and the provision of mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which apply for an Authority to Construct, demonstrating that the stationary source of air pollutants would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Rule 2201 also requires that there shall be no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. AIR RR-11. Construction contractors and building users shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance). A note that requires compliance is required on all grading plans and building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. A requirement to comply with Rule 4102 also shall be included in all building lease agreements. (FEIR, pp. F-20, F-21, and F-150) AIR RR-12. As a requirement of all construction contracts, a provision shall be including that requires all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with current and applicable air quality regulations of CARB and the SJVAPCD. (FEIR, pp. F-67 and F-150) AIR DF-14. No more than 101,219 s f of the warehouse space shall be constructed or operated as chilled, refrigerated, or freezer space. Any such temperature -controlled warehouse space shall be denoted on building plans and the City shall verify that the total size of all such space does not exceed 101,219 sf as part of the City's building permit plan checkprocess, both for the warehouse shell building permit and building permits for tenant improvements. (FEIR, pp. F-90, F-130, and F-150) With implementation of Mitigation Measure 0, and with mandatory compliance with standard regulatory requirements, including SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (ISR), and design features, Project operational emissions of ROG and NOx would be reduced to below the SJVAPCD's thresholds of significance. Accordingly, with mitigation, the Project would not conflict with the AQAP and impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.2-47) 11 OAKF� 41 0 sue, � d ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 B. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "b" for Construction Emissions) Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: Operation of the Project at full build -out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PMIo) emissions. The main source of PMio emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project. The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, as well as the local zoning codes. Project -related transportation activities from employees and consumers would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, Sox, CO, PMIo, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. As the Project is not expected to generate an adverse change in current activity levels, substantial emissions are not anticipated. (DEIR, p. 4.2-29) The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts. Operation -related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod and without the implementation of mitigation measures, would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels for CO, SOx, PMIo, and PM2.5, but would exceed significant threshold levels for ROG and NOx. Prior to mitigation, the Project would emit 10.57 tons/year of ROG whereas the significance threshold is 10 tons/year. Prior to mitigation, the Project also would emit 26.91 tons/year ofNOxwhereas the significance threshold is 10 tons/year. Both ROGs and NOx are precursors to ozone. Accordingly, prior to mitigation, the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively -considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (i.e., 03) for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, resulting a significant direct and cumulatively -considerable impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30) The results of the air dispersion modeling, demonstrate that the maximum impacts attributable to the Project, when considered in addition to the existing background concentrations, are below the applicable ambient air quality standard for NOx, SOx, and CO. Because the Project's modelled PMIo and PM2.5 would be below the SJVAPCD's significance levels for 24-hour and annual concentrations, the Project's contribution to potential violations of ambient air quality standards would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-31 to 4.2-32) To ensure that the cumulatively -considerable net increase of Project related operational emissions of criteria pollutants are mitigated to a level of less than significant, MM AIR MM-1 and AIR RR 4 through RR-10, previously noted herein, are required. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 0, and with mandatory compliance with standard regulatory requirements, including SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (ISR), and design features, Project operational emissions of ROG and NOx would be reduced to below the SJVAPCD's thresholds of significance. Accordingly, with mitigation the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (i.e., 03, PMIo, and PM2.5) for which the Project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and impacts would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.2-48) 42 0�gAK,c- a � P 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 C. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of FindinK. The proposed Project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HA -Ps), visibility, due to CO "hot spots," the generation of fugitive dust and the suspension of Valley Fever spores within the local area, and due to naturally occurring asbestos. (DEIR, p. 4.2-33) SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic non -cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic non -cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) would not exceed the significance levels of twenty in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively for the proposed Project. The maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 1.82E-05. The maximum chronic non -cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 9.75E-03. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer and chronic risk, the Project would not have a significant adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities. Potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant (DEIR, pp. 4.2-35 to 4.2-36) Because the Project's PMIo emissions increase is predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project (including San Rafael Wilderness, Domeland Wilderness, Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project's predicted less -than significant PMIo emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less -than -significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-36 to 4.2-37) Due to the location and traffic increase anticipated from this Project, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO "hot spot" modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed. Accordingly, Project impacts due to CO "hot spots" would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-37) It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to concentrations of Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. Accordingly, prior to mitigation the Project has the potential to result in significant localized impacts due to suspended Valley Fever spores that may be generated during Project construction activities and that could adversely affect construction workers and visitors on the Project site during construction. (DEIR, p. 4.2-38) According to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the Project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be 43 ccOPKE,��.� o R, } r `�pFUG�NAL Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 present. Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-38) The proposed Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to cancer or non -cancer risks exceeding the identified thresholds of significance, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project also would result in less -than -significant impacts associated with air visibility, CO "hot spots," and naturally occurring asbestos. However, the Project does have the potential to expose on -site construction workers to suspended Valley Fever spores that may be generated during Project grading activities. This is a potentially significant impact for which mitigation would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-38) To ensure that Project localized impacts due to Valley Fever are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures are required. AIR MM-2. The Project's construction contractors shall provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors to the construction site about Valley Fever. Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to provide the training and protective gear, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires these items is required on all gradingplans approved by the City of Bakersfield. AIR MM-2A. To minimize personnel and public exposure to dust potentially containing Valley Fever, a dust control plan shall be prepared by the grading contractor and shall be approved by the City of Bakersfield prior to the commencement of grading. The plan shall include at minimum the following requirements: o Construction equipment, vehicles, and other items shall be thoroughly cleaned of dust before they are moved off -site to other work locations. o Wherever possible, grading and trenching work shall be phased so that earth -moving equipment is working well ahead or down -wind of workers on the ground. o The area immediately behind grading or trenching equipment shall be sprayed with water before ground workers move into the area. o All heavy-duty earth -moving vehicles shall be closed -cab and equipped with a HEPA- filtered air system. (FEIR, pp. F-60 and F-159) To further reduce adverse effects on sensitive receptors, the following are required. AIR MM-3. Construction equipment staging areas for equipment over 150 horsepower shall be not be located within 1, 000 feet of South HStreet. The construction equipment staging area location(s) shall be shown on all grading plans and building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. AIR DF-12. One row of trees planted along South HStreet shall be non -deciduous (evergreen) species. Tree species shall be indicated on final landscaping plans to be approved by the City �gP,KFa 44 o (PI, f- if; 'ORIGINRI r Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 of Bakersfield prior to approval of street improvement plans for South H Street. (FEIR, pp. F- 13 and F-150) AIR DF-13. At least 50% of the trees planted in the passenger vehicle parking lot between South H Street and the warehouse building shall be non -deciduous (evergreen) trees. Tree species shall be indicated on final landscaping plans to be approved by the City of Bakersfield prior to approval of building permits that authorize the construction of passenger vehicle parking lots between South HStreet and the warehouse building. (FEIR, pp. F-13 and F-150) Implementation of Mitigation Measures 02 and AIR MM-2A would ensure that future construction workers and site visitors associated with the Project are provided training/education regarding Valley Fever, and would ensure that all construction workers are provided with protective respiratory equipment for use during ground -disturbing activities that could generate particulate matter. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce Project localized impacts due to Valley Fever to less -than -significant levels. (DEIR, p. 4.2-48) 2.3.2 Biological Resources A. Would the Project 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 Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold "a") Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has undergone frequent disturbance, was previously used for intensive agriculture, and is surrounded by roads, urban development, and former agricultural lands. No listed or California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) species were identified on the Project site during the field survey and the site does not represent suitable habitat for any of the special - status plants evaluated. Therefore, there is no potential for direct and indirect impacts to special -status plant species within the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.3-9) Although no burrowing owls or sign of species presence was observed during focused surveys conducted on the Project site, California ground squirrel burrows, which are frequently used by burrowing owls for nesting and shelter, along with potential and known San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) dens, were observed during field surveys. Therefore, the site is likely to support small mammals that are potential prey items in the diet of burrowing owl. Thus, the Project's construction activities could remove potential foraging and potential nesting habitat for burrowing owl. The potential presence of burrowing owl is considered a significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact because the species is migratory and could be present on the Project site at the time the Project's construction activities commence. Because burrowing owl is not a covered species under the MBHCP, impacts would be significant if the species migrates onto the site, and mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-10) No nesting opportunities for Swainson's hawk or white-tailed kite are present on the Project site. Given the low quality of the grassland present on the site, the loss of this marginal foraging habitat KE 45 o A �C�1�tNP� Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 for these species would not be significant. In addition, no direct impacts to individuals are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 4.3-10) The Project site provides suitable denning habitat for SJKF. Several suitably sized holes were observed during the survey effort and eight known dens were found. If the site is occupied by SJKF at the time Project construction activities commence, there is a potential that Project activities could result in harm or injury to SJKF that would constitute a significant impact. Therefore, potential direct impacts to SJKF would be significant and mitigation is required. Implementation of measures required per the MBHCP to protect SJKF will additionally result in minimizing effects to burrowing owls due to overlapping habitat requirements and American badger due to the overlap in badger burrows and SJKF den size. Neither burrowing owl nor American badger are covered species under the MBHCP; however, both species will benefit from measures implemented to avoid direct and indirect "take" of SJKF. (DEIR, p. 4.3-10) Birds nesting on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site could be disturbed if the Project's construction activities occur during the nesting season when active nests are present. If these nests are disturbed to the extent that eggs are destroyed, young are injured or killed, or adults abandon the nests, a violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code could result. Therefore, potential direct impacts to nesting and migratory birds would be significant and mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-11) To ensure that Project impacts to special -status wildlife species are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirement are required. BIO MM-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any permit that authorizes ground disturbance, a biological clearance survey shall be conducted on all areas that would be physically disturbed by a CDFW-approved biologist for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) in accordance with the requirements of the MBHCP and CESA ITP. If known, active, or natal SJKF dens are identified during the survey, minimization measures identified in the CESA ITP for den avoidance must be demonstrated (MBHSCP CESA ITP Condition of Approval 7.5). If dens cannot be avoided, monitoring and den exaction as described in MBHCP CESA ITP Condition of Approval 7.6 shall be adhered to. BIO MM-2. Surveys to detect burrowing owls shall be conducted by a CDFW-approved biologist no more than 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities on the Project site and can be conducted concurrently with the pre -activity survey required per the MBHCP. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February I through August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg -laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If burrowing owls are observed using burrows during the surveys, owls shall be excluded from all active burrows through the use of exclusion devices placed in occupied burrows in accordance with CDFG protocols, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, shall be implemented. In such case, exclusion devices shall not be placed until the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the burrow, as determined by a qualified biologist. Specifically, exclusion 46 `r-n M 'ORIGINAL® MaJesHe Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 devices, utilizing one-way doors, shall be installed in the entrance of all active burrows. The devices shall be left in the burrows for at least 48 hours to ensure that all owls have been excluded from the burrows. Each of the burrows shall then be excavated by hand and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Exclusion shall continue until the owls have been successfully excluded from the site, as determined by a qualified biologist. BIO MM-3. If vegetation clearing or initial ground -disturbing construction activity occurs during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31) a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the qualified avian biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. BIO MM-4. The Project Applicant shall assure that the Project's construction contractors adhere to the following best management practices. Construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to comply with these best practices, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires compliance is required on all grading and building plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. a) All construction personnel involved in ground -disturbing construction activities should attend a worker orientation program. The worker orientation program should present measures required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biological resources and should include, at a minimum, the following subjects: A summary of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); biological survey results for the current construction area; life history information for the species of concern; biological resource avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements; consequencesforfailure to successfully implement requirements; and procedures to be followed if dead or injured wildlife are located during Project activities. Upon completion of the orientation, employees should sign a form stating that they attended the program and understand all biological resource mitigation measures. Forms verging worker attendance should be filed at the Project Applicant's office and be accessible to the City of Bakersfield, USFWS and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel should be allowed to work onsite with the exception of delivery trucks that are only onsite for I day or less and are under the supervision of a trained employee. b) All equipment storage and parking during construction activities should be confined to the designated construction area or to previously disturbed offsite areas that are not habitat for listed species. 47 O�$Ak�4� 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 c) Project construction activities involving initial surface disturbance should occur during daylight hours. d) Trenches should be inspected for entrapped wildlife each morning prior to the onset of construction. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for entrapped animals. Any wildlife so discovered should be allowed to escape voluntarily, without harassment, before construction activities resume. A qualified biologist may remove wildlife from a trench, hole or other entrapment out of harm 's way if the immediate welfare of the individual is in jeopardy. State or federal listed species may not be handled. Should any State or federal listed species become entrapped, CDFW and USFWS should be contacted as appropriate. e) All food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by Project construction activities should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife should be prohibited. f) To prevent harassment of special -status species, construction personnel should not be allowed to have firearms or pets on the Project site. g) All equipment and work -related materials should be contained in closed containers either in the work area or on vehicles. Loose items (e.g., rags, hose, etc) should be stored within closed containers or enclosed in vehicles when on the work site. h) Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the Projectsite should be prohibited unless approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of special -status species using adjacent habitats, and to avoid the depletion of prey upon which they depend. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of its proven lower risk to S.IKF. i) Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species, or who finds any such wildlife dead, injured, or entrapped on the Project site, should be required to report the incident immediately to a designated site representative (e.g., foreman, project manager, environmental inspector, etc). j) In the case of entrapped wildlife that are listed species, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately, ifpossible, to allow the subject wildlife to escape unimpeded. k) In the case of injured special -status wildlife, the CDFW should be notified immediately. During business hours Monday through Friday, the phone number is (559) 243-4017. For non -business hours, report to (800) 952-5400. Notification should include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident. Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care of the injured animal should be followed by the contractor onsite. l) In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the CDFW should be immediately (within 24 hours) notified by phone or in person, and should document the initial notification in writing within 2 working days of the findings of 48 0 vORIOINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 any such wildlife. Notification should include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident. m) Material and equipment inspections shall be conducted according to the MBHCP CESA ITP. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a diameter 3 inches or greater shall be properly capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife. Any of these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not capped shall be inspected prior to being moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife are not present. If a listed species is found within pipe, culverts or similar structures, the animal will be allowed to escape that section of its own accord prior to moving or utilizing that segment. n) If any previously unidentified protected species or any previously unreported protected species is found to be present during Project -related construction activities, occupied areas shall be avoided and the construction contractor shall be required by its contract to call a CDFW-approved biologist to the site to identify the species. If the species is protected, the qualified biologist shall note the USFWS and CDFW of any previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW. BIO RR-S. For grading/ground disturbance that is not authorized per the MBHCP or that is not authorized by January 1, 2023 or occurs after June 1, 2023, the Project site shall be surveyed by a qualified professional biologist for signs of occupation by San Joaquin kit fox. The Project applicant shall coordinate with CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) if there is evidence of site occupation by San Joaquin kit fox. If CDFW or USFWS determine that the Project may result in unauthorized take of San Joaquin kit fox, the appropriate (CESA and/or FESA) take authorization shall be obtained. CESA and FESA authorizations shall include measures addressing the respective state and/or federal listed species and shall include the following at a minimum: • Implementation of standardized biological resource protective measures included in BIO MM-4; • Biological preconstruction surveys conducted by qualified biologists approved by each applicable agency no more than 30 days prior to conducting work on the Project site; • If any known San Joaquin kit fox dens are detected, implementation of the most recent USFWS protocols (Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011)) unless protocols are issued by either CDFW or USFWS that supersede these protocols. • Destruction of San Joaquin kit fox dens shall follow the monitoring and excavation procedures in USFWS (2011). • Biological monitoring of initial ground disturbance during each phase of grading; • Provision for compliance reporting to be provided to each agency as required in respective take authorizations; • Compensation for habitat disturbance acceptable to CDFW (state listed species) and/or USFWS (federal listed species) at a ratio of no less than 3:1 for permanent impacts and 49 �OPKfiad' OORIGINAt- Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 1.1:1 for temporary impacts to listed species habitat. The only existing approved conservation bank for impacts to San Joaquin kit fox habitat in Kern County is the Kern Water Bank Authority Conservation Bank. Lands used to mitigate for San Joaquin kit fox must be contiguous with other potentially occupied lands, provide suitable foraging and denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox, and be located in the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County below 1,500' in elevation; • Compensation land shall be funded for maintenance, protection, and management through establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment. The endowment must be a non -wasting account that is acceptable to both CDFW and USFWS. (FEIR, pp. F-61, F-62, F-144, F-145, and F-150) BIO RR-6. For grading permits or any other permits that authorize ground disturbance that are issued prior to January 1, 2023, or in compliance with the MBHCP, the Project Applicant shall pay fees pursuant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and Incidental Take Permit, which includes coverage for the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). The payment of development impact fees is considered adequate mitigation under the MBHCP and Incidental Take Permit to minimize impacts on special -status species. The fees are placed in an accountfor habitat acquisition and management to be used by the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Trust Group. Upon the payment of this fee as specified by the City of Bakersfield, the Project Applicant will become a sub permittee and will be allowed the incidental take of the species in accordance with State and federal endangered species laws and mitigation requirements of all parties, including State, federal, and local (City of Bakersfield and Kern County 1994, Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2013-058-04). (FEIR, pp. F-62, F-145, and F-152) With implementation of BIO MM-1, BIO MM-2, BIO MM-3, BIO MM-4, BIO RR-5, and BIO RR-6, the Project's potential to impact San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) and burrowing owl would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-18; FEIR p. F-61 to F-62) B. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Threshold Y j Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: Due to the presence of potential and known SJKF dens on the Project site, specific procedures for den activity monitoring are required by the MBHCP prior to initial ground disturbance near dens, so long as the MBHCP remains a valid plan (coverage under the MBHCP is expected to expire in 2023). If the species is present on the Project site at the time that Project grading activities commence, significant impacts would occur. The EIR recommends mitigation to ensure Project consistency with the MBHCP. With mitigation through participation in the MBHCP, 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. (DEIR, p. 4.3-12) 50 �- fn `ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 To ensure that the Project's potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan are mitigated to a level of less than significant, BIO MM-1 through BIO RR- 6, previously noted herein, are required. With implementation of BIO MM-1, BIO RR-5, and BIO RR-6 and the required compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) for so long as it remains a valid plan, the Project's potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-18 to 4.3-19; FEIR pp. F- 61 to F-62) 2.3.3 Cultural Resources A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 95064.5? (Threshold 'b") Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: Based on the cultural records search and pedestrian survey of the Project site, no known archaeological resources are present on the Project site. Because no archaeological resources are known to exist on the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. However, it is possible (although unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site) that previously undiscovered archaeological resources may be present beneath the site's subsurface, and may be impacted by ground -disturbing activities associated with Project construction. If any prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction that meet the definition of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those prehistoric cultural resources would be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-13) To ensure that Project impacts to any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with Project construction are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures are required. CR MM-1. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period involving ground -disturbing construction activities, 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. Workers attending the training shall sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant and made available to the City of Bakersfield upon request. CR MM-2. If suspected cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 100 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the 51 .o �_- in 'ORIGIN) Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. If cultural resources are discovered that may have relevance to Native Americans, the specialist or Project Applicant must provide written notice to the City of Bakersfield, Tejon Indian Tribe, Native American Heritage Commission, and any other appropriate individuals, agencies, and/or groups as determined by the specialist in consultation with the City of Bakersfield to receive input regarding treatment and disposition of the resource, which may include avoidance, testing, and/or excavation to prevent destruction of the resource and/or to allow documentation of the resource for research potential. 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. Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) CR MM-1 and CR-MM-2 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with Project construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Cumulatively -considerable impacts would likewise be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-16) B. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Threshold "c") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the site. A field survey conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4.4- 13) If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 "Disturbance of Human Remains." According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment �gAKF2 52 F- m 'ORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. Notwithstanding the requirements of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, due to the potential to discover buried human remains during Project construction activities (i.e., grading), a potentially significant impact would occur and mitigation would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.4-14) To ensure that the Project's potential impacts to buried human remains are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure is required. CR MM-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 ofcommunication 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. Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254 (r), parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254 (r). In the event that human remains are discovered during construction activities, Mitigation Measure CR MM-3 would require compliance with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq. Mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure CR MM-3, State law, and applicable regulatory requirements would reduce the Project's potential impacts to buried human remains to less -than -significant levels. (DEIR, pp. 4.4- 16 to 4.4-17) 2.3.4 Geology and Soils A. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Threshold YJ Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any known unique geologic features. The Project area has a very low potential for containing important fossil remains because the area is underlain by alluvial deposits that are too young to contain significant fossil remains. However, the possibility exists in the area that older fossiliferous alluvium may be present six feet below the surface since the remains of Pleistocene (ice age) land animals have been collected from older alluvial deposits in Kern County. If excavations penetrate below six (6) feet, there is a "low to moderate 53 o�gAKF,r ORIGINAL® Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 potential" for the discovery of fossils. A "low to moderate potential" indicates that grading operations may expose fossils during development. These activities could destroy any fossils present. The destruction of such fossils could adversely impact the region's paleontological resources. Therefore, if any unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature are unearthed during the Project's construction activities and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts would be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) To ensure that the Project's potential impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are required. GEO MM-1. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period involving ground -disturbing construction activities, a construction worker paleontological resource awareness trainingprogram shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site, if their work will involve ground -disturbing construction activities greater than six feet in depth in Pleistocene older alluvium soils. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified professional paleontologist. Workers attending the training shall sign a form that shall be kept by the Project Applicant and made available to the City of Bakersfield upon request. GEO MM-2. If paleontological resources are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist can be called to the site to evaluate the find and make recommendations. Paleontological resource materials may include fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks that have been preserved in rock. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts to less than significant levels. Construction within 100 feet of the find shall not resume until the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be to be less than significant by the paleontologist. GEO MM-3. Recovered specimens, if any, shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation ofspecimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storages shall be required for discoveries of significance as determined by the paleontologist. GEO MM-4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Bakersfield prior to final building inspection. GEO RR-5. In compliance with City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 15.05, California Building Code, construction of the Project is required to adhere to the California Building Standards Code and its requirement to prepare and adhere to site -specific recommendations �gAKF, 'ORIGINAL 54 Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 contained in a geotechnical report prepared for the Project site. As such, compliance with the recommendations provided in the Project's geotechnical study prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. and dated September 9, 2021 (contained as Technical Appendix F to the EIR) is required. GEO RR-6. To address wind erosion, the Project construction activities are required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 15 Section 104.12 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to ensure that dust abatement measures comply with the current standards set for by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJAPCD). GEO RR-7. The Project Applicant is required, pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain coverage under the State's General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction -related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that construction contractors will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution — including erosion/sedimentation — is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro - seeding. Mitigation Measures GEO MM-1, GEO MM-2, GEO MM-3, and GEO-MM-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, with implementation of GEO MM-1, GEO MM-2, GEO MM-3, and GEO-MM-4, the Project's potential direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-15) 2.3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials A. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Threshold «a.,) B. Would the Project 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? (Threshold 'b") Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Facts in Support of Finding: There are three conditions associated with the site's existing condition that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with handling of existing site materials that could be hazardous. These include the need to cap two existing water wells, the potential for existence subsurface private septic system(s) associated with past uses, and the potential to encounter agricultural -related chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and �gAKF� 55 o sr1 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 fertilizers in soils during the construction process. The two water wells would be capped in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Should a septic system be encountered during the Project's construction activities, it would need to be properly removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable local and State regulations, including but not limited to the CCR Title 5, Appendix H. Last, if residual amounts of pesticides or herbicides are found in soils during the construction process, any concentrations of these materials would be reduced during construction activities through grading and filling, with capping of the soils beneath proposed building footprints and pavements. (DEIR, p. 4.8-8) To ensure that Project construction activities do not inadvertently release hazardous materials into the environment, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are required. HAZ MM-1. The Project's construction contractors shall provide training and personal protective equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel involved in ground -disturbing construction activities about the potential for discovery ofsubsurface septic systems and soil contaminates. Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to provide the training and protective gear, and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Bakersfield staff or its designee to confirm compliance. A note that requires these items is required on all grading plans approved by the City of Bakersfield. HAZ MM-2. Any stained or odorous soil that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities shall be removed, stockpiled, and transported for disposal in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. Soil samples shall be collected from the resulting excavation(s) to verb complete removal of any impacted soil. During soils/debris removal operations, a Project Environmental Professional (Environmental Professional) shall be retained by the Project Applicant or construction contractor and shall be available to identify and address other issues that may arise in the course soil -disturbing construction activities. As determined necessary by the Environmental Professional, additional measures shall be employed to minimize effects of any encountered hazards. Documentation of the measures employed and resulting conditions after their application shall be documented and submitted to the City of Bakersfield. HAZ MM-3: Representative soil samples shall be collected prior to ground disturbance and analyzed for residual organochlorine pesticides and chlorinated herbicides. Should residual levels be detected that exceed action levels established by regulatory agencies, materials shall be handled under the direction of a licensed environmental professional and in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Any stained or odorous soil that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities shall be removed, stockpiled, and transported for disposal in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. Soil samples shall be collected from the resulting excavation(s) to verb complete removal of any impacted soil. During soils/debris removal operations, a Project Environmental Professional (Environmental Professional) shall be retained by the Project Applicant or construction contractor and shall be available to identify and address other issues that may arise in the course of soil -disturbing construction activities. As determined necessary by the Environmental Professional, additional OAKF 56 �_ fn 'ORiGINAL� Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 measures shall be employed to minimize effects of any encountered hazards. Documentation of the measures employed and resulting conditions after their application shall be documented and submitted to the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield is required to assure that implementing development complies with the assumptions relied upon herein and applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the topic of Hazards and Hazardous Materials. (FEIR, pp. F-133, F-134, F-156, F-159, and F-160) HAZRR-3. Existing water wells shall be abandoned and capped as part of the site preparation phase of the construction process, consistent with applicable regulations of the State of California Department of Water Resources (as reflected in Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90); and the Central Valley RWQCB. HAZ RR-4. Any septic systems encountered during construction activities shall be properly abandoned in compliance with the regulations of the Central Valley RWQCB; the California Uniform Plumbing Code; and Manual of Septic Tank Practice as published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and the rules, standards and regulations of the City of Bakersfield. HAZRR-5. Construction contractors shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction -related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Central Valley RWQCB. HAZ RR-6. Any business that occupies the Project site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) shall be required to comply with California's Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the Kern County Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). HAZ RR-7. If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the future buildings on the Project site, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances. HAZ RR-8. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the Kern County Operational Area Hazardous Materials Area Plan to ensure compliance with established procedures, rules, and regulations for emergency responses in the event of a hazardous materials incident. With implementation of HAZ MM-1, HAZ MM-2, HAZ MM-3 and HAZ RR-3 through HAZ RR-8, the Project's potential to result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment either through risk of upset, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced to below a level of significance. (DEIR, p. 4.8-15) �gAKe 57 o s� �- rn 'ORIGINAL- 7 Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 2.3.6 Land Use and Planning A. Would the Project 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? (Threshold "b") Findin : Less -than -Significant Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Prior to mitigation the proposed Project would conflict with the AQAPs due to emissions of ROG and NOx that exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for these pollutants, and by potentially providing more jobs in the area beyond those projected by the AQAPs through 2030. Accordingly, priorto mitigation the proposed Project would conflict with the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be significant on both a direct and cumulatively - considerable basis. The mitigation measures provided in EIR Subsection 4.2.7 would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. (DEIR, p. 4.10-6) The Project would have a potentially significant impact on the San Joaquin kit fox, which is addressed in the MBHCP (effective through June 2023). The Mitigation Measures provided in EIR Subsection 4.3.6 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-6) The Project's proposed General Plan Amendment would ensure consistency between the proposed Project's land uses and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The Project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies and the general intent of the General Plan and has no potential to result in significant land use and planning conflicts in the context of compliance with applicable environmental plans, policies, and regulations. (DEIR, p. 4.10-31) 2.3.7 Tribal Cultural Resources A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 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 (Threshold "a"): i. 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), or ii. 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 Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation 58 Majestic Gateway Project Findlncas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Facts in Support of Finding: No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified on the Project site that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. No resources were identified on the Project site that meet any of the criteria to be eligible for the California Register and no prehistoric resource sites or isolates were found on the Project site based on the cultural records search and pedestrian survey of the Project site. Furthermore, no substantial evidence was presented to or found by the City of Bakersfield that led to the identification of any resources on the Project site that in the City's discretion had the potential to be considered a tribal cultural resource. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-3 to 4.14-4) Because no tribal cultural resources exist on the Project site under existing conditions, implementation of the proposed Project would not impact such resources. However, it is possible (although unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the site) that previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources may be present beneath the site's subsurface, and may be impacted by ground -disturbing activities associated with Project construction. If any tribal cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction that meet the definition of a significant tribal cultural resource and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those tribal cultural resources would be significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-4) To ensure proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with Project development, CR MM-1 through CR MM-3, previously noted herein, are required. Implementation of CR MM-1 through CR-MM 3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less -than -significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-4) 2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined herein and in the EIR, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level by any feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2) and (a)(3), which are infeasible as a result of specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations, or are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein. For the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds and declares, in its independent judgment, that the Project's benefits substantially outweigh and justify the following significant and unavoidable impacts: 2.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Threshold "a") 59 3ORIGINAO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 Findin : Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively -Considerable Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Bakersfield is using a net -zero threshold for this Project, meaning that any amount of GHG emissions from the Project is considered a significant impact. Because the Project would result in a total net increase of approximately 20,504.28 MT COze/yr, the Project's impact is significant on a cumulatively -considerable basis. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17) The application of AIR MM-1, previously noted herein, TRN DF-4 through TRN DF-10 listed below, and the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are required to reduce the Project -related GHG emissions. GHG MM-1. Construction contractors shall assure that: a) construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower achieves or is equivalent to or better- than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 emissions standards, or Tier 3 standards if Tier 4 equipment is not available at the time of construction; and b) construction equipment over 50 horsepower is fitted with best available control technology (BACT) devices, if technically feasible and if the BACT devices can be reasonably acquired by the contractor. These requirements shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective contractors. Prior to grading and building permit issuance, the construction contractors) shall submit an equipment list to the City's Development Services Director confirming that the equipment used is compliant. The contractor(s) also shall keep a copy of the equipment list, with CARB tier levels noted, BACT devices noted, and any required CARB or SJVAPC operating permits required, on the construction site in a location available for the City or City designee for inspection upon request. (FEIR, pp. F-76, F-82, and F-152) GHG MM-2. Construction contractors shall assure that hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers used for construction are electric powered and shall designate an area of the construction site where electric powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge. The City of Bakersfield shall verify the location of the designated charging area in association with grading and building permit issuance. GHG MM-3. Project construction contractors shall tune and maintain all construction equipment in accordance with the equipment manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. Maintenance records for all pieces of equipment shall be kept on - site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City of Bakersfield or its designee. GHG MM-4. Provisions shall be made at the warehouse site for emerging electric truck technology. Prior to the issuance of a shell building permit for the warehouse building, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that the warehouse site plan identifies an on -site location for future electric truck (tractor) charging stations, with space available for a minimum of 9 trailers to simultaneously charge (5% of the number of warehouse building dock doors) when charging stations are installed in the future. The conduit trenching shall be installed to that location for future conduit pull as a requirement of the shell building permit. OORIGINALF Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 GHG MM-5. In conjunction with the approval of tenant improvement plans and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a minimum of 9 truck (tractor) electric charging stations shall be installed on -site. If the warehouse building tenant is not served by electric trucks at the time the City issues the certificate of occupancy, as a condition of the occupancy permit, electric truck charging stations shall be installed and operational no later than 18 months from the date of certificate occupancy or December 31, 2025, whichever is soonest. (FEIR, pp. F- 76, F-77, F-138, F-152, and F-153) GHG MM-6. Prior to issuance of a shell building permit for the warehouse building, the City of Bakersfield shall verb that electric charging stations are provided at the exterior for the purpose of charging electric yard equipment such as forklifts and yard hostlers. GHG MM-". The Project site owner and all successors in interest shall stipulate in building sale and lease agreements that all indoor and outdoor forklifts and all outdoor cargo -handling equipment (e.g., yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts) shall be powered by electric or other zero -emission technology. (FEIR, pp. F-19, F-58, F-77, and F-153) GHG MM-7. The roof of the warehouse building and all commercial structures shall be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system of the maximum size feasible given applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof -mounted equipment, PG&E interconnection regulations, and other code compliance constraints. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that the roof -mounted solar photovoltaic systems are installed. (FEIR, pp. F-15, F-19, F-46, F-77, F-83, F-84, F-139, and F-153) GHG MM-8. Any loading dock serving refrigerated warehouse space shall be equipped with an electric plug to power a transport refrigeration unit. Prior to issuance of a tenant improvement building permit that authorizes the installation of refrigerated warehouse space, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that the electric plug will be provided. GHG MM-8A. A natural gas line shall not be installed to service the warehouse building. The City of Bakersfield shall verify that there will be no gas line during the shell building permit and tenant improvement building permit plan check processes. (FEIR, pp. F-47, F-77, and F- 153) GHG MM-8B. Commercial buildings shall be prohibited from using natural gas for building operations with the exception of food service business that require the use of natural gas to operate commercial kitchens. The City of Bakersfield shall verify compliance with this requirement during the tenant improvement building permit plan check process. (FEIR, pp. F- 47, F-77, and F-153) GHG MM-8C. The warehouse building owner shall stipulate in building sale and lease agreements that all transport refrigeration units accessing the Project site are required to be equipped with electric plug-in capabilities and shall be required to plug in at a loading dock within 15 minutes of entering the Project site. (FEIR, pp. F-59, F-77, F-153, and F-154) O��PKFa� 61 e� 50RIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 GHG MM-9. The warehouse building's electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to accommodate the number and size of electrical panels reasonably anticipated to be needed to support technological advances in zero -emission technologies. Prior to issuance of a shell building permit for the warehouse building, the City of Bakersfield shall ensure that either a -secondary electrical room will be provided in the building or that the primary electrical room of the building is sized 25% larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear installed with the initial construction has 25% excess demand capacity. GHG MM-10. At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces assigned to all buildings shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, with all necessary raceways, conduit and related appurtenances installed pursuant to the requirements of CALGreen Title 24. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces assigned to the warehouse building shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces assigned to the commercial development area shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations or better, with at least 2% of the spaces equipped with working Level 3 Quick charge stations, installed and operational, prior to each building occupancy. All of the charging stations shall be publicly accessible and not positioned behind gates or otherwise restricted from public access. Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air/EV vehicles. Unless superior technology is developed that would replace the EV charging units, the building operators and any successors in interest shall be responsible for maintaining the EV charging stations in working order for the life of the buildings. (FEIR, pp. F-46, F-47, F-77, F-78, F-137, F-139, and F-154) GHG MM-11. The rooftops of commercial buildings and the office portions of the warehouse building shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index ("SRFof not less than 78. This material shall be the minimum solar reflective rating of the roof material for the life of the building. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Bakersfield shall verb that the roofing material complies. GHG MM-12. The Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall provide the warehouse building operator with an information packet regarding EPA Smartway features that are required to be incorporated into haul trucks, as required by GARB. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. GHGMM-13. The Project's building users shall be encouraged to explore incentives available from the SJVAPCD under the `Heavy Duty Truck Replacement Program. " This program provides incentives for the replacement of existing heavy-duty diesel trucks with new, zero or near -zero -emission technology. (At the time of this writing, information is available at https:llww2.valleyair.org/grants/truck-replacement programl..) Provided that thisprogram or a comparable program remains available, an information packet about the program shall be provided to every building user prior to occupancy. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, 62 6 A KFa� in `v r- ORONqLo Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 the Project Applicant, its successor in interest, or the Project's property owner's association shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. GHGMM-13A. The Project's warehouse building user shall explore incentives available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the "Carl Moyer Program " and "Voucher Incentive Program. " The Carl Moyer Program provides grant funding for cleaner -than - required truck engines, equipment, and other sources of air pollution. The On -Road Voucher Incentive Program seeks to reduce airpollutant emissions by replacing existing, high polluting vehicles with newer, lower -emission vehicles. Provided that these programs or comparable programs remain available, an information packet about the programs shall be provided to the warehouse building user prior to occupancy. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant, its successor in interest, or the Project's property owner's association shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. (FEIR, pp. F-16, F-78, and F-154) GHG MM-13B. The Project's commercial property owner's association and warehouse building tenant shall explore incentives available from "The Clean Green Yard Machines Commercial Voucher Program. " This program provides incentives to use electric landscape maintenance equipment. (At the time of this writing, information is available at https:llww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green yard-machines-commerciall..) Provided that this program or a comparable program remains available, an information packet about the program shall be provided to the Project's commercial property owner's association upon formation of the association and to warehouse building user prior to occupancy. The Project Applicant, its successor in interest, or the Project's property owner's association shall provide a copy of the packet to the City of Bakersfield as verification of the packet contents. (FEIR, pp. F-19, F-78, and F-155) GHG MM-14. The Project's building tenants shall be encouraged in building sale and lease agreements to use zero -emission commercial vehicles upon reasonable commercial availability of such vehicles. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building user shall report to the City of Bakersfield as part of the occupancy permit application process whether the business will be served by owned, leased, or vendor commercial vehicles, and their fuel types, if known. The City shall in turn provide the applicant with information regarding the environmental benefits of zero -emission commercial vehicles and any incentive programs the City is aware of to encourage businesses to use zero -emission vehicles. Tenant owned light - duty and medium -duty delivery vehicles assigned to the warehouse full time shall be registered in the City of Bakersfield. (FEIR, pp. F-78. F-79, F-84, and F-155) GHG RR-14. All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy. The City of Bakersfield shall confirm Title 24 compliance prior to the issuance of building permits. GHG RR-I5. All vehicle operators are required to comply with CARB Rule 2485 and CARB Rule 2449, which limits nonessential idling of diesel fueled commercial vehicle engines and o``Q,AKFa� 63 r- 'ORIUNO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 diesel powered off -road equipment to five minutes or less. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for buildings with loading dock areas, the City of Bakersfield shall verify that signs are posted in these areas that inform vehicle and equipment operators about the requirements of these Rules except that such signs shall post a 3-minute idling restriction (instead of the 5- minutes required by CARB). (FEIR, pp. F-18, F-79, and F-155) GHG RR-16. In compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review (ISR)), the Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the SJVAPCD, which will identify emission reduction measures for emissions of NOX and PM10. The performance measures listed below can be met through any combination of on -site emission reduction measures or off -site fees. a) Related to construction -related emissions, the exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than fifty (50) horsepower used or associated with the project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by the ARB: 20% of the total NOX emissions, and 45% of the total PM10 exhausts emissions. Construction emissions can be reduced by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing addon controls, cleaner fuels, or newer lower emitting equipment. b) Related to operational emissions, NOX emissions shall be reduced by 33.3% of the project's operational baseline NOX emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. PM10 emissions shall be reduced by 50% of the project's operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of ten years as quantified in the approved AIA. Although the Project's GHG emissions would only be a very small fraction of the global GHG emissions that contribute to climate change, the City is using a net -zero threshold. Because the Project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project's impacts due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable on a cumulatively -considerable basis. (DEIR, p. 4.7-27) 2.4.2 Transportation A. Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Threshold "b") Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively -Considerable Impact Facts in Support of Finding: For the commercial component of the Project, the overall VMT with the Project is less than the baseline; therefore, the Project's commercial retail related traffic VMT impact would represent a less than significant impact. The reduction of overall VMT with the addition of the Project's retail area is due to the reduced trip length for retail services for the surrounding residential areas. (DEIR, p. 4.13-9) For the warehouse component of the Project, the Project VMT/employee compared to the 2018 baseline of 19.17 miles is 51.33% (9.84 miles) and 47.73% (9.15 miles) for 2018 and 2042 respectively. 64 o�C0AKF9�' ?n 'ORIGINO Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 These values are below (less than) the 15% OPR Technical Advisory recommendations; therefore, VMT associated with the Project's future warehouse employees would represent a less -than -significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10) The State CEQA Guidelines and the OPR Technical Advisory omit heavy duty trucks from the VMT analysis and consideration regarding thresholds of significance. However, an estimate of the daily VMT associated with trucks from the warehouse portion of the Project is provided as follows. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has established a default value of 50 miles/trip for trucks operating at warehouse facilities within the San Joaquin Valley. This default is used for the air quality analysis of the Project. The estimated daily truck volume for the Project is 580 trucks. Therefore, the daily VMT associated with the warehouse trucks would be 29,000 miles/day. Although there is no baseline and no threshold values defined by the State for comparison with the Project truck VMT estimate, out of an abundance of caution in drawing conservative conclusions, VMT impacts associated with Project -related heavy truck traffic are treated similarly to employee trip lengths and considered significant by the EIR if truck trip lengths exceed 16.29 miles (85% of the 19.17 mile baseline shown in DEIR Table 4.134). Because the truck trip length is assumed to be 50 miles, it would exceed the 16.29-mile significance threshold and the impact related to truck VMT would be a direct and cumulatively -considerable impact of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10) It should be noted that VMT has a direct relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because a majority of the Project's air quality and GHG emissions are related to mobile sources (vehicle tailpipe emissions). Pursuant to EIR Mitigation Measure AIR MM-1, the Project Applicant is required to enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD, which would require a fee payment to fund SJVAPCD emission reduction projects, which would serve to off -set the Project's vehicular -related air quality and GHG emissions. With the VERA, air quality impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance while GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10) Mitigation is not available to reduce the Project's VMT associated with large truck trips. This is because the destination of Project -related truck trips would consist of fixed locations (e.g., ports, last -mile delivery facilities, etc.), and it would not be feasible for the Project Applicant or the City of Bakersfield to mandate a reduction in the distance the large trucks must travel to their destination. As such, mitigation measures are not available to reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable VMT impacts associated with large truck trips. The application of the following regulatory requirements and design feature are required to reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable VMT impacts associated with large truck trips. TRNRR-1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay appropriate Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) fees at the rates then in effect in accordance with Chapter 15.84 of the City s Municipal Code. TRNRR-2. All off -site roadway improvements shall comply with applicable provisions of City of Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) and Chapter 13.12 (Development Improvements Standards and Specifications). �gAKF�, 65 M r 'ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project FIndinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 TRN RR-2A. If any building user occupying the Project site employs 100 or more eligible employees, an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) is required to be established in compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction). Rule 9410 requires that employers encourage employees to reduce single -occupancy vehicle trips to reduce pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. (FEIR, pp. F-20, F-79, and F- 156) TRN DF-3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the warehouse building, the facility operator(s) shall establish and submit for approval to the Development Services Director a Truck Routing Plan to and from SR-99 using the Hosking Avenue ramps, which will apply to trucks owned and operated by the warehouse building user. The plan shall include measures, such as signage, pavement markings, and enforcement mechanisms for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. The facility operator shall be responsible for enforcement of the plan. TRN DF-3A. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the warehouse building, the Project Applicant or its successor in interest shall submit an application to the City of Bakersfield and Caltrans and receive approval to designate the warehouse's truck route, from State Route 99 to Hosking Avenue to South H Street to Berkshire Road west of South H Street as a "Terminal Truck Route. " Upon approval, enforcement of the truck route use will be provided by the California Highway Patrol and Bakersfield Police Department. (FEIR, pp. F- 79, F-140, and F-156) TRN DF-4. Signage and pavement markings shall be installed interior to the site to denote efficient vehicle movement patterns. Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall review improvement plans for all vehicle travel surfaces to ensure that specifications are noted to install directional signage and pavement markings. The markings for truck circulation are required to be bold enough to be noticeable by truck drivers. The City shall verb that the signs and markings are installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. The warehouse building owner or user and commercial property owner's association shall be made responsible for maintaining the interior directional signage and pavement markings for perpetual legibility. (FEIR, pp. F-14, F-79, and F-157) TRNDF-S. At every bike rack and bike parking location required under CALGreen Title 24, a charging station shall be provided for the purpose of charging electric bikes. Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall review improvement plans to ensure that specifications are noted to install electric bike charging stations. The City shall verify that the charging stations are installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. (FEIR, pp. F-15, F-79, and F-157) TRNDF-6. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with Golden Empire Transit District (GET) and the City of Bakersfield to install one bus stop at the Project site's frontage with Berkshire Road and one stop at the Project site's frontage with South H Street. Additionally, the Project Applicant ` 0RIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 shall coordinate with GET on bus route adjustments to incorporate both stops into a GET bus route. (FEIR, pp. F-24, F-80, and F-157) TRNDF-7. An ADA-compliant path shall be provided from the new site -adjacent bus stop on Berkshire Road to an entrance of the warehouse building. The path shall be indicated on building and landscaping plans for the warehouse to be approved by the City of Bakersfield. (FEIR, pp. F-24, F-80, and F-157) TRNDF-8. An ADA-compliant path shall be provided from the new site -adjacent bus stop on South HStreet to the sidewalk system serving the commercial buildings positioned south of the warehouse. The path shall be indicated on building and landscaping plans for the first commercial structure south of the warehouse to be approved by the City of Bakersfield. (FEIR, pp. F-24, F-80, F-157, and F-158) TRNDF-9. The Project's commercial property owner's association is required to prepare and submit to the City of Bakersfield for approval a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) applicable to all commercial building tenants in the Project, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a commercial building tenant. The City -approved TDMP, which shall be administered and enforced by the Project's commercial property owner's association, shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools, transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of traffic congestion, and on -site parkingpreferences for zero -emission vehicles, among other items that have reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on single -occupant gas powered vehicles during peak time travel periods (rush hours). (FEIR, pp. F-80, F-85, F-86, F-138, and F-158) TRN DF-10. The warehouse user shall be encouraged by the provisions of its lease to implement a local hiring program, which may consist of job fairs or other programs to incentivize and prioritize the employment of persons who live near the property, to reduce commuting distance from home to work. (FEIR, pp. F-80, F-134, and F-158) TRN DF-11. Prior to building permit issuance, the City of Bakersfield shall review building plans to ensure that specifications are noted to install painted crosswalks or enhanced paving materials denoting the pedestrian and bicycle lane crossings across the Project's driveways connecting with Berkshire Road and South H Street, the purpose of visually alerting drivers that pedestrians and bicyclists could be crossing the driveways. The markings on the Berkshire Road driveways are required to be bold enough to be noticeable by truck drivers. The City shall verb that the markings are installed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permitfor the first building that would use said driveways for access. (FEIR, pp. F-141 and F-158) TRNDF-12. The warehouse developer and all successors in interest shall install and maintain signs at the Project driveway exits connecting with Berkshire Road at heights visible to truck drivers that state, "Caution: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Ahead". The City shall verb installation of the signs prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit and require as a condition 67 Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 of the occupancy permit that the signs be maintained in legible condition. (FEIR, pp. F-141, F-158, and F-159) Although the Project's impacts to VMT from the proposed commercial retail uses and warehouse employees would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance, Project -related truck traffic would generate approximately 29,000 miles/day and 50 miles per truck, which exceeds the significance threshold established by the EIR of 16.29 miles per truck. Mitigation is not available to reduce this impact, as the destination of Project -related truck trips would consist of fixed locations (e.g., ports, last -mile delivery facilities, etc.), and it would not be feasible for the Project Applicant or the City of Bakersfield to mandate a reduction in the distance the large trucks must travel to their destination. As such, the Project's truck -related VMT is a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed Project on both a direct and cumulatively -considerable basis. (DEIR, p. 4.13-15 to 4.13-16) 2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be implemented The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). An environmental change would fall into this category if a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy). (DEIR, pp. 5-1 to 5-2) Determining whether the proposed Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project, but development of the Project site as proposed would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., fossil fuels). Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve the use of large sums or sources of non-renewable energy. Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), compliance with which reduces a building operation's energy volume that is produced by fossil fuels. The Project would be subject to regulations to reduce the Project's reliance on non-renewable energy sources. The Project also would be subject to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which contains provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and availability of renewable energy. The Project also would be subject to California Energy Code, or Title 24, which contains measures to reduce natural gas and electrical demand, thus requiring less non-renewable energy resources. The Project would avoid the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy during Project construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal. With mandatory compliance to the energy efficiency regulations and mitigation measures, the Project would not involve the use of large sums or sources of non-renewable energy. A more detailed discussion of Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy. (DEIR, p. 5-2) v & AORIGINAL 68 Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 EIR Subsection 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the proposed Project's potential to transport or handle hazardous materials which, if released into the environment, could result in irreversible damage. As concluded in the analysis, compliance with federal, State, and local regulation related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors working on the property during the Project's construction and of all the future occupants of the Project's buildings. As such, construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause significant irreversible damage to the environment, including damage that may result from upset or accident conditions. (DEIR, p. 5-2) 2.6 Growth -Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project would be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential developments represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. (DEIR, p. 5-2) A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environments where population or employment growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees. Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the proposed Project's operation as a commercial and warehouse development. The Project's construction- and operational -related employees would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services needs would be marginal, accommodated by existing goods and service providers, and highly unlikely to result in any new physical impacts to the environment. Therefore, while the Project would create economic opportunities caused by introducing new job opportunities to the Project site, this change would not induce substantial new growth in the region. (DEIR, p. 5-3) Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of significance to the environment. Typically, growth -inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Kern County Association of Governments (Kern COG). Significant growth impacts also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. (DEIR, p. 5-3) According to the growth trends included in Kern COGs RTP/SCS, Metropolitan Bakersfield's population is projected to grow by 13,651 residents between 2017 and 2042 (approximately 1.8% PK6.0 s 69 0, �ORIG}NAl Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 annual growth). Over this same time period, employment in Metropolitan Bakersfield is expected to add 3,098 new jobs (approximately 1.3% annual job growth. Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Project's operation as a commercial and warehouse development. The Project's employees (short-term construction and long-term operational) would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services demands is expected to be accommodated by existing goods and service providers and, based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services available in areas near the Project site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Project would create jobs, approximately 1,200 warehouse employees and 300 commercial employees, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City of Bakersfield and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project's future employees would already be living in the City of Bakersfield, the Project's introduction of employment opportunities on the Project site would not induce substantial growth in the area. (DEIR, p. 5-3) The area surrounding the Project site consists of undeveloped parcels proposed for future development to the north and south, the Kern Island Canal and residential to the east, and SR-99 and residential to the west. Development of the Project site is not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties because these areas are already built -out, have approvals for future development, or have proposals for future development under review by the City of Bakersfield. Furthermore, the proposed Project's improvements to the public infrastructure, including roads, drainage infrastructure, and other utility improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not indirectly induce substantial and unplanned population growth in the local area. (DEIR, p. 5-4) Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse growth -inducing impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-4) 2.7 Project Alternatives The EIR analyzed five alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project's significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project's objectives. 2.7.1 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis A. Alternative Sites CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then an alternative sites analysis should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or exclude an analysis of an alternative site, the "key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)). �AKF9 70 >- m 0ORIGINALo Majestic Gateway Project Findinsas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 The City of Bakersfield conducted a review of potential alternative site locations, and identified a total of seven (7) locations that are undeveloped, designated for commercial or industrial land uses, and that are of sufficient size to accommodate the uses proposed as part of the Project. However, the Project Applicant does not own or otherwise have control of any of the alternative site locations. Furthermore, development of the Project at an alternative location would not reduce or avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Project's GHG emissions are due to the construction and operation of a 1,012,185 s.f. cross -dock speculative warehouse building and 187,500 s.f. of commercial uses. The Project's VMT impacts are associated with truck trip lengths. Because the Project's operational characteristics would not change with development of the Project at an alternative site location, and truck trip lengths could potentially increase, none of the Project's two significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided or reduced to below a level of significance. (DEIR, p. 6-6; FEIR p. F-127 to F-128 [Response E-10]).) Specifically, approximately 86% of the Project's GHG emissions would be due to mobile sources, and the amount of traffic generated by the Project would not substantially change with development of the Project at an alternative site location. Vehicle -related GHG impacts are a direct reflection of the Project's expected operational characteristics as a commercial and warehouse center, regardless of the property where the Project is located. The Project's VMT impacts are associated with truck trip lengths and the selection of any location further from SR-99 than the Project site (which is located adjacent to SR-99) would worsen VMT impacts. As noted above, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen a Project's significant environmental effects need to be considered in an EIR. Accordingly, because development of the Project site at an alternative site location would not reduce or avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact due to GHG emissions, a more detailed analysis of alternative site locations is not warranted. (DEIR, p. 6-6) 2.7.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR A. No Development Alternative The No Development Alternative (NDA) allows decision -makers to compare the environmental impacts of approving the Project to the environmental impacts that would occur if the property were left in its existing undeveloped condition for the foreseeable future. Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped and where vegetation is present, it consists of disturbed annual grassland and ruderal species. The Project site would continue to be subject to routine maintenance (i.e., discing) for weed abatement. This alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition. (DEIR, p. 6-9) Implementation of the NDA would result in no physical environmental impacts beyond those that have historically occurred on the property. Almost all effects of the proposed Project would be avoided or lessened by the selection of the NDA, with exception of long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts, which would be increased under this alternative. Because this alternative would avoid most of the Project's impacts, it warrants consideration as the "environmentally superior alternative." However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2), if a no project alternative is identified as the 71 0ORIGNAl- Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Accordingly, the Warehouse Only Alternative (WOA), is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. (DEIR, p. 6-14) The NDA is rejected by the Lead Agency because it would fail to meet all of the Project's objectives. Specifically, the NDA would not expand economic development, facilitate job creation, or increase the tax base for the City of Bakersfield by establishing new commercial and light industrial development adjacent to or near the State highway system. The NDA also would not attract employment -generating businesses to the City of Bakersfield to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, thereby improving the jobs -housing balance in the City and nearby areas beyond the City boundary. The NDA also would fail to diversify the mix of uses in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County to support the growing goods movement supply chain and to streamline package delivery services in and around the City of Bakersfield. The NDA also would not meet the Project's objective to establish a supply chain use adjacent to or near designated truck routes and/or the State highway system to avoid or shorten vehicular trip lengths on other roadways. The NDA would not meet the Project's objective to provide retail shopping opportunities easily accessible to local residents and passers-by on the State highway system to assist in meeting the growing and evolving shopping demands of local residents and planned communities in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County. The NDA also would fail to meet the Project's objective to develop an unused or underutilized property near SR-99. The NDA also would not provide a gathering place for City residents and visitors that includes shopping and other retail services in an aesthetically appealing environment. Finally, the NDA would fail to meet the Project's objective to develop light industrial and commercial uses that are architecturally and operationally designed to meet contemporary industry standards and be economically competitive with similar buildings in the region. (DEIR, pp. 6-14 to 6- 15) B. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative (NPA) considers development of the Project site in accordance with the site's existing land use designation of "General Commercial (GC)" and the site's existing zoning classification of "General Commercial/Planned Commercial Development (C-2-PCD)." Under this alternative it is assumed the Project site would be developed in a manner that is consistent with the "SR-99/Hosking Commercial Center Project," which was previously approved for the Project site by the City of Bakersfield City Council in 2015 (SCH No. 2007101067). Thus, under the NPA, the Project site would be developed with up to 800,000 s.f. of leasable commercial space and a four-story hotel with 240 hotel rooms. This alternative was selected by the Lead Agency to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an alternative that would allow for buildout of the Project site in accordance with the site's existing General Plan land use designation and zoning classification. (DEIR, p. 6-15) As compared to the proposed Project, the NPA would have increased impacts under the issue areas of air quality (ROG, NOx, and CO emissions), hydrology/water quality (water demand), transportation, and utilities/service systems. The NPA would result in the same or similar impacts under the issue areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality (except water demand), land use/planning, and tribal cultural resources. The 72 OORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 NPA would result in reduced impacts under the issue areas of air quality (SOx, PMio, and PMz.s emissions and localized air quality impacts), energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, and noise, and would avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact associated with truck -related VMT but likely cause a significant and unavoidable VMT impact associated with employee and visitor passenger, vehicle trips. (DEIR, p. 6-22) The NPA is rejected by the Lead Agency because it would not meet several of the Project's objectives. The NPA would not meet the Project's objective to expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the City of Bakersfield by establishing new commercial and light industrial development adjacent to or near the State highway system, as the NPA would not accommodate light industrial uses. The NPA would not include light industrial uses, and thus would not meet the Project's objective to diversify the mix of uses in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County to support the growing goods movement supply chain and to streamline package delivery services in and around the City of Bakersfield. The NPA also would fail to meet the Project's objective to establish a supply chain use adjacent to or near designated truck routes and/or the State highway system to avoid or shorten vehicular trip lengths on other roadways. Because the NPA does not include light industrial uses, the NPA also would not meet the Project's objective to develop light industrial and commercial uses that are architecturally and operationally designed to meet contemporary industry standards and be economically competitive with similar buildings in the region. (DEIR, pp. 6-22 to 6-23) Further, the Lead Agency rejects the NPA because there is not a market demand for the land use as evidenced by no action being taken by private industry toward developing the site for commercial purposes following the City's approval of the "SR-99/Hosking Commercial Center Project" in 2015 (DEIR p. 2-7). C. Panama Lane Truck Routing Alternative Under the Panama Lane Truck Routing Alternative (PLTRA), all Project -related truck traffic accessing the Project site via SR-99 would be restricted to Colony Street and Panama Lane, with no truck trips allowed along South H Street. All other on -site components of the PLTRA would be similar to the proposed Project. Off -site, all utility improvements and roadway improvements would be the same under the PLTRA and proposed Project, with the exception that fewer improvements would be made at the intersection of South H Street and Hosking Avenue because the intersection would not need to accommodate Project -related truck turning movements. Although more traffic congestion would be anticipated along Panama Lane, the PLTRA is assumed to not include any widening or improvements to Panama Lane, as the right of way is already fully improved. Although the Project would not result in any localized impacts associated with truck traffic (i.e., localized air quality impacts or traffic -related noise), this alternative was selected in order to consider an alternative that would avoid routing truck trips along roadways that parallel existing residential uses (i.e., existing residential uses located east of South H Street and the Kern Island Channel). (DEIR, p. 6-23) As compared to the proposed Project, the PLTRA would have reduced impacts to sensitive receptors under the issue areas of air quality (localized air quality) and noise (traffic -related noise). All other impacts of the PLTRA would be identical to the proposed Project, and the PLTRA would not result in any increased environmental impacts as compared to the proposed Project. The Lead Agency requests the PLTRA because traffic congestion would increase along Panama Lane (DEIR, p. 6-27), which already experiences congestion during the peak hours (DEIR Technical Appendix J). Traffic 73 �- m � r 3,RMNO Majestic Gateway Project FIndinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 congestion leads to potential vehicle safety issues and longer vehicle idling times, thereby adversely affecting regional air quality in a manner that would be worse as compared to routing trucks to Hosking Avenue (FEIR pp. F-16 to F-17 [Response A-4]). D. Warehouse Only Net Zero Alternative Under the Warehouse Only Net Zero Alternative (WOA), the Project site would be developed entirely with warehouse uses, with no commercial retail uses proposed. Under the WOA, warehouse uses would be constructed on approximately 86.11 acres, with approximately 4.48 acres of the Project site consisting of retention basin uses. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that warehouse uses would be developed at an intensity similar to the proposed Project, which proposes to develop the warehouse portions of the Project site at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.44. Accordingly, under the WOA the Project site would be developed with up to 1,650,419 s.f. of warehouse building area (86.11 acres x 0.44 FAR x 43,560 s.f./acre = 1,650,419 s.£). Consistent with the proposed Project, warehouse uses under the WOA would consist of 90% fulfillment center uses and 10% cold storage uses. Based on the rates assumed in the Project's Traffic Study, the WOA would generate approximately 5,795 average daily trips (ADT), whereas Table 4b of the Project's Traffic Study shows that the proposed Project would generate approximately 12,700 ADT; thus, the WOA would result in an approximate 55% reduction in daily vehicle trips as compared to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 6-27) This alternative assumes that the Project Applicant would be able to construct the WOA to prepare for a net zero GHG emissions future and that the building user would be able to implement operational practices to achieve near -zero or net -zero GHG emissions by 2050. Requiring a near -zero or net -zero project on opening day is not feasible because although technological advancements are occurring to reduce GHG emissions across various sectors of the economy, they are not advanced enough to assure that area source, energy source, and mobile source emissions can achieve net -zero in the next 25 years. However, with elimination of the commercial uses (conceptually designed to include 12 buildings) proposed under the Project and only focusing on one large building and its future user(s), it is possible that given the trends in technological advancements that the WOA could have near -zero or net -zero GHG emissions by 2050. As compared to the proposed Project, the WOA would result in increased short-term air quality (localized impacts), energy (increased demand for diesel fuel, natural gas, and electricity), GHG, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and truck -related VMT impacts. In the long-term as the WOA transitions to a near -zero or net -zero GHG emissions by 2050, the WOA would have reduced long- term air quality, GHG, and noise impacts compared to the proposed Project. Implementation of the WOA would have the same or similar impacts under the issue areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality (except water supplies), land use/planning, and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of the WOA would result in reduced impacts under the issue areas of air quality (except localized impacts), energy (gasoline demand, only), long-term GHG emissions, hydrology/water quality (water and groundwater supplies, only), passenger vehicle related VMT, and utilities/service systems. (DEIR, p. 6-34) The Lead Agency rejects the WOA because it would fail to meet or would be less effective in meeting several of the Project's objectives. Due to the omission of commercial retail uses under the�AK�� 74tj ` 0SIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 WOA, the WOA would be less effective than the proposed Project in expanding economic development, facilitating job creation, and increasing the tax base for the City of Bakersfield by establishing new commercial and light industrial development adjacent to or near the State highway system. As the WOA would not accommodate commercial retail uses, the WOA would fail to meet the Project's objective to provide retail shopping opportunities easily accessible to local residents and passers-by on the State highway system to assist in meeting the growing and evolving shopping demands of local residents and planned communities in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County. Due to the lack of commercial retail uses under the WOA, the WOA would not meet the Project's objective to provide a gathering place for City residents and visitors that includes shopping and other retail services in an aesthetically appealing environment. Additionally, and again due to the lack of commercial retail uses under the WOA, the WOA would be less effective than the proposed Project in developing light industrial and commercial uses that are architecturally and operationally designed to meet contemporary industry standards and be economically competitive with similar buildings in the region. Last, the Lead Agency rejects the WOA because it is questionable whether the WOA is feasible. The WOA is aspirational and it is not known with certainty whether a near -zero or net -zero WOA could actually be fully achieved by 2050 as it is yet unknown how quickly technological advancements will occur that would be feasible for a building operator to implement and for the City of Bakersfield to enforce. (DEIR, pp. 6-34 to 6-35) E. Reduced Project Alternative Under the Reduced Project Alternative (RPA), the Project site would be developed with approximately 25% less commercial building space and 25% less warehouse building space than proposed under the Project. The RPA thus evaluates development of the Project site with 140,000 s.f. of commercial uses and a 760,000 s.f. warehouse distribution facility. The buildings would occur in the same general arrangement as proposed under the Project, but with smaller building footprints. The areas not covered by buildings would be used for surface parking for passenger vehicles, trucks, and trailers. The RPA would generate approximately 9,495 average daily trips (25% of the Project) and commensurately reduce operational effects by 25%. (DEIR, p. 6-35) As compared to the proposed Project, the RPA would result in reduced construction -related and operational impacts due to the provision of 25% less building space (air quality energy, GHG, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, truck -related VMT, and utilities and service systems). Implementation of the RPA would have the same or similar impacts under the issue areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality (except water supplies which would be less), land use/planning, and tribal cultural resources. (DEIR, p. 6-40) The Lead Agency rejects the RPA because it would meet the Project's objectives to a lesser degree compared to the proposed Project. Due to the 25% reduction in building space under the RPA, the RPA would be less effective than the proposed Project in expanding economic development, facilitating job creation, and increasing the tax base for the City of Bakersfield by establishing new commercial and light industrial development adjacent to or near the State highway system. The RPA would be less effective at meeting the Project's objective to attract employment -generating businesses to the City of Bakersfield to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, thereby improving the jobs -housing balance in the City and nearby areas 75 0ORIGINAL Majestic Gateway Project Findinas of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 beyond the City boundary. The RPA would be less successful than the Project in diversifying the mix of uses in the City of Bakersfield and greater Kern County to support the growing goods movement supply chain and to streamline package delivery services in and around the City of Bakersfield, due to the smaller warehouse building. The RPA would also be less successful at establishing a supply chain use adjacent to or near designated truck routes and/or the State highway system to avoid or shorten vehicular trip lengths on other roadways, as the demand for such space would still be present potentially resulting in adding vehicle trips from other projects that could be pursued to meet the demand. The RPA would provide retail shopping opportunities easily accessible to local residents and passers-by on the State highway system but to a lesser degree than the Project. (DEIR, pp. 6-40 to 6-41) 2.7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. As discussed in the DEIR, implementation of the NDA would result in no physical environmental impacts beyond those that have historically occurred on the property. Because the NDA would avoid most of the Project's impacts, it warrants consideration as the "environmentally superior alternative." However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2), if a no project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Warehouse Only Alternative (WOA) is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6, but the Lead Agency rejects the WOA for the reasons stated above. (DEIR, p. 6-2) 3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council hereby declares that it has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, if the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and herein, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project and Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after implementation of all feasible mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: A. The Project is estimated to generate approximately $2.8 million in annual fiscal revenues to the City's General Fund and drive approximately $600,000 in annual fiscal expenses upon buildout and stabilization; (Kosmont, 2022, p. 12) B. The Project is expected to generate net revenues to the City's General Fund of approximately $2.2 million per year upon buildout and stabilization; (Kosmont, 2022, p. 12) 76 y n r OORIQINA L Majestic Gateway Project Findings of Fact SCH No. 2022030196 C. Construction and ongoing operation of the Project is expected to generate significant spending, create jobs, and support the local and regional economy on an ongoing basis; (Kosmont, 2022, p. 14-15) D. Construction of the Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,700 one-year construction related jobs, labor income of approximately $110 million, and total economic output of approximately $243 million through direct, indirect, and induced economic activity; (Kosmont, 2022, p. 14) E. Upon build -out and stabilization, the Project is estimated to annually support approximately 3,700 jobs, labor income of approximately $165 million, and total economic output of approximately $390 million through direct, indirect, and induced economic activity; (Kosmont, 2022, p. 15) F. The Project provides development of a functional, well serviced, and attractive commercial development area and warehouse distribution facility that improves and maximizes economic viability within the City by the orderly transition of underutilized land into productive commercial and industrial uses; and G. The Project attracts new employment -generating business to the City of Bakersfield thereby reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment. The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that each of the Project's benefits separately and individually outweigh all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. 4.0 Additional Facts on Record 4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Bakersfield hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"). The City finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes (i.e., mitigation measures) imposed on the Project to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment during Project implementation. The MMRP is on file with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. 4.2 Custodian of Record The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. The custodian for these records is Kassandra Gale, Principal Planner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 77 `ORIGINAL Exhibit C: Location Map rn r- o CORIGINAL G PA/ZC 21-0184 LR MAGDELENA AVE LRi�`LR t`c diV LR hi- 1IRVIN-1XLV0N C-ANA1_ I,'I+ LR. LR- LR_ �� a 1ANUARYDR - SLATERFIELD�� +'��' i I LR+IAVE� LR j BERKSHIRE RD LR LR��f I LR I '• 60ULDER+ SILVERSHORE ■ RIOGELN' LRI y LR +� STONEY, �R- I PARADISES POINT I PEAR LN Pl. spill AMBER_q GRANITE RIDGE PL CANYON PL' LR LR { fsl p. _ CRESCENT RIDGEST ':�♦I LR WILLOW BASIN LN • RISING MIST� _ LN I.R. i GRdNDVIEWi _ CRESTIINEFAILS'• � LN IN ' LR i- at LR Sa j�� ''BALAH[Ef�l ,LR _ �I _LSHADED',- {= ROCK LN —I _--(ANYONPL; LR, Iui3LR loJ �l EAGLE VALLEY Pl. GRAND HTVEN.LN. LR, 'ERSFIELD LR r .r I DRIFTS OR LR J i LR ol� LR' HOSKING AVE I. LIR. LR LR .TAPGRIOGEDR pZIFF. • • DR LR o MC GWIRE �I LR FLINT HILLS DR o LR' - LR of BAGWELLCT' G - TRAPPER ST _ IESPERANZADR , yILR LR LR' TAR SPRINGS AYE I ca ity OA -' LACORTE PL` y SOSA EADOWSDR, .40L.R. . LR q n` ILR . NJ .LR , MA(AU ST MACAU ST LR M0' OF C= � - A,I LR; {`� I^ LR.. LR• LR D© . - EAD-LR LSTONEMOWS+ TRENTI_N) AVE W - TkEHTINO AVE S_ALVATORE AVE . pRf al LR j LR LR LR, LR LR' LR LR 1 ` 'LR 'I jotii il'�' H~r �� r- LOSTTRAIL•WA STRE1VERAVE LR'h- ��IsI LR l LR LR_T r dr °LR LR 0 3 CANDACE AVE' { IVY ICI' d' •. LR' _ , iTRAE LI �I`',111ALDERGLENI. '''•- • LR •�-i,l,,,", • ST BALASISST - ARNDT LR LR LR,- PYRITEST + -- LR (T� SR ' . .FOURPEAKS ' (ATESST zj I;" - pARNEL of STf I LR j �oC il(TT LR, Nj h1 EAGLE (REEKSTI� • mi ill' BA(HELORST i<I LR _ICILR ,-LR' 1VIAYNESROROUGH�� - NARROWS ST . LR d ;A((ABAR ST LR ' �T SR BERKSHIRE RD S LR.-.' �� ��i - -. WAR RD BERTINA (I W+ =ts LR gRJ �I LR LR f_ LR' = e QUARTZ HILL R_D L.. - .z OLSON d LR LR LR' LR 3 CLIPPER HILLS OR' LR',r LTtW�_,i ', BERRYESSA SIERRA SUMM_li AVE ice; L.R. o;I LR _ TAOSSVAY m PARK CITY AVE + i LR zf LR ` BADGER PASSAVE -` LR lo' - r _ 'LR F1'ITE [T LR - LR _ KIRKWOOD AVE,YALOESCT TLR. W�QI LR., HOSKING AVE ' - LU(ERNEDR VAILARTA__ LR'• LR. ,YIES4iAVE�EWI 'I LF FNGELBERG DR -M_ ARMARA AVE L.R. LIR IHTERLAKEN OR _ s AEGEAN AVE o LR . •. mf LR J LR INNSBRUCK DR- SORIA VIEW AVEf I LR '; LR • L Land Use RESIDENTIAL SR -Suburban Residential: 5 4 dwelling units/net acre LMR - Law Medium Density Residential: > 4 units but 510 dwelling units/net acre I:«E [MR/LR LR - Low Density Residentiol:5 7.16 dwelling units/net acre COMMERCIAL = GC - General Commercial PUBLIC FACILITIES - P - Public Facilities ® PS - Public/Private Schools OPEN SPACE OS-P - - Parks and Recreation ® SITE 2JI1111=' ToLI- LightIndustrial ..IIIIIG 0 BAKERSFIELD I Feet I I 0 400 800 2021_11_01_gpazc