Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZC 22-0451 S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\1. Hearing and Noticing Documents\CC & PC\PC\Draft\ZC 22-0451 PC Staff Report.docx CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 20,2023 AGENDA: 5.e TO: Chair Bashirtash and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Paul Johnson, Planning Director DATE: July 14, 2023 FILE: Zone Change No. 22-0451 WARD: 4 STAFF PLANNER: Noeli Topete, Associate Planner I REQUEST: Change in the zone classification from A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) or a more restrictive district. APPLICANT: OWNER: Francisco A Macedo Francisco A Macedo 3526 Cathedral Rose Avenue 3526 Cathedral Rose Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93313 Bakersfield, CA 93313 PROJECT LOCATION: 7321 Rosedale Highway. APN: 368-060-20 PROJECT SIZE: 0.37 acres CEQA: Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SI (Service Industrial) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: A (Agriculture) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and (2) Adopt Resolution APPROVING the zone change from A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) or a more restrictive zone classification and recommend same to City Council. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is developed with an existing building previously used as an auto dealership. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – Highway 58 followed by a self- storage facility; east – Fruitvale School District Office; south – single family residence; and west – furniture store. ZC 22-0451 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE: • January 28, 1998 - Bakersfield City Council approved the current City pre-zoning of “A” for the subject property (Ordinance No. 3819). • September 28, 2021 - Rosedale No. 13 was annexed to the City Of Bakersfield. This project site was included as a portion of this annexation area (Annexation 679). PROJECT ANALYSIS: Consistency. Government Code Section 65860 requires a city’s zoning ordinance to be consistent with the general plan. When a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent due to a general plan amendment, the city must enact a consistent zoning ordinance within a “reasonable time.” In this case, it appears the pre- zoning in 1998 was cause for the inconsistency. The proposed zone change to M-2 (General Manufacturing) would be appropriate for the existing development and bring consistency with the current land use designation of SI (Service Industrial) and surrounding zoning. Site Development: The applicant states the existing 776 square foot building on the site will be utilized for a use consistent with the zoning. No new development or expansion is proposed. Site Plan Review. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code (“BMC”) Section 17.08.060, no construction of any improvements which require a building permit or renovation of improvements shall be permitted without first obtaining site plan approval. Therefore, the applicant will be required to complete the formal Site Plan Review process prior to issuance of any permits. This will ensure the project site complies with current City standards and policies (e.g., setbacks, landscaping, solid waste collection, pavement condition, masonry walls, etc.,) as part of the development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION: Based upon an initial study, Staff has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The ND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from June 1, 2023, to July 3, 2021. Environmental Conclusion. The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. Significant environmental impacts were not identified for the proposed project. Comments Received. As of this writing, no public or agency comments have been received. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division. Comments Received. As of this writing, no written public comments have been received. ZC 22-0451 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS: Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan, which encourages continuity of existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure. Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the existing land use designation and land uses in the surrounding area. Based on information in the record, Staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and (2) Adopt Resolution APPROVING the zone change from A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) or a more restrictive district and recommend same to City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Map Set • Aerial • Zone Classification • General Plan Designation Negative Declaration with Attachments Planning Commission Draft Resolution (Negative Declaration) Planning Commission Draft Resolution (zone change) MAP SET S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 1 of 21 NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures. PROJECT NO. (or Title): Zone Change No. 22-0451 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: June 1, 2023 COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: July 3, 2023 S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 2 of 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1. Project (Title & No.): Zone Change No. 22-0451 2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Development Services Department 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Noeli Topete, Associate Planner I (661) 326-3165 4. Project Location: 7321 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield CA 93308 (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 368-060-20) 5. Applicant (name and address): Francisco A Macedo 3526 Cathedral Rose Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93313 6. General Plan Designation: SI (Service Industrial) 7. Zoning: A (Agriculture) 8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.): Francisco A Macedo (property owner, applicant), is proposing a Zone Change on 16,104 square feet located on the south side of Rosedale Highway, approximately 735 feet west of Wedding Lane from an A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone district, or a more restrictive district. 9. Environmental setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses): The project site is located in an urban area of west Bakersfield. The project site consists of a 776 square foot building and a paved lot with driveway access along Rosedale Highway. Surrounding land uses in all directions consists of SI (Service Industrial). Adjacent properties include a furniture store to the west, Fruitvale School District Office to the east, residential property to the south, and an arterial roadway to the north. The nearest school is Vista West High School located 0.07 mile east of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): • City of Bakersfield –Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • Kern County Environmental Health - Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Permit S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 3 of 21 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.): ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agricultural Resources ☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology / Water Quality ☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resource ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation ☐ Noise ☐ Transportation / Traffic ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ■ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required. □ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Noeli Topete, Associate Planner I Printed name S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 4 of 21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 5 of 21 Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project; a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □ ■ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■ c) In nonurbanized areas, 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? □ □ □ ■ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project; a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■ d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest? □ □ □ ■ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project; a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? □ □ ■ □ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □ d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■ b) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) □ □ □ ■ S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 6 of 21 Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ □ ■ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ □ ■ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ ■ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? □ □ □ ■ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ □ □ ■ VI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? □ □ ■ □ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? □ □ ■ □ VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project; a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No.42) □ □ ■ □ ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □ iv. Landslides? □ □ □ ■ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? □ □ ■ □ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the city’s most recently adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? □ □ □ ■ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □ ■ VIIl. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project; a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ ■ □ b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ ■ □ IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ ■ □ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment? □ □ ■ □ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ ■ □ d) 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 □ □ □ ■ S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 7 of 21 Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □ g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? □ □ □ ■ X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project; a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? □ □ □ ■ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: □ □ □ ■ i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ □ ■ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? □ □ □ ■ iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? □ □ □ ■ iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ ■ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? □ □ □ ■ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? □ □ □ ■ XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project; a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ ■ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ □ ■ XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project; a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■ XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in; a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ □ ■ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ ■ XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project; a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes & businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■ S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 8 of 21 Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services; i. Fire protection? □ □ ■ □ ii. Police protection? □ □ ■ □ iii. Schools? □ □ □ ■ iv. Parks? □ □ □ ■ v. Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □ XVI. RECREATION: Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ ■ XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project; a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □ b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ ■ □ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■ XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in the terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is; a) Listed of 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)? □ □ □ ■ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5021.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? □ □ □ ■ XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project; a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □ c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ ■ d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■ S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 9 of 21 Environmental Issue Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■ XX. WILDFIRES: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? □ □ □ ■ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■ XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ □ ■ □ b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □ c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ ■ □ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS I. AESTHETICS a. No Impact. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of Federal, State or Local Agencies, and is consistent with the City of Bakersfield Zoning and Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations for the project area. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5 %. The project site and surrounding area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as visually important or scenic (City of Bakersfield, 2002). There is no scenic vista that will be impacted by construction of this project. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to a scenic vista. b. No Impact. The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to a state highway which is designated as “scenic”. The closest state highway eligible for designation is State Route (SR) 14 located approximately 55 miles southeast from the project site (California Department of Transportation, 2019). Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c. No Impact. The project is located within the City of Bakersfield limits, is contiguous with existing and developed land uses, and is located within an urban environment. There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that are applicable to the project. Additionally, the area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 10 of 21 as being visually important or designated “scenic.” Therefore, the project would result in no impact on zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas. d. Less Than Significant Impact. This project involves incremental growth of urban development within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime and will not produce substantial glare. City of Bakersfield development standards including Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 require the project comply with current lighting, and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare trespass to neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to light and glare. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a. No Impact. The project site is zoned A (Agriculture); the project site consists of existing structures and paving. It is not currently being farmed. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (California Department of Conservation, 2022). The project would not include the conversion of 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. b. No Impact. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract (or in an area where agricultural uses are located). The project site has a land use designation of SI (Service Industrial) by the MBGP and zoned A (Agriculture) by the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. The project applicant is requesting approval of M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Land Use Contracts. c. No Impact. As discussed in response II.b, the project site is currently zoned for agricultural uses. No forestlands exist on the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause the rezoning of forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts related to forestland. d. No Impact. Please refer to response II.c. e. No Impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This project is in an area designated for urban development by the MBGP. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. III. AIR QUALITY a. No Impact. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAPCD encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development (SJVACPD, 2015). Local ordinance and general plan requirements related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development is consistent with these listed strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quality strategies for new residential and commercial developments include, but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the MBGP Air Quality Conservation Element as well as the SJVAPCD Air Quality guidelines and rules. The project would comply with local Air Pollution Control District permit S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 11 of 21 requirements. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the obstruction of an air quality plan. b. Less Than Significant Impact. The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and 8-hour ozone. The SJVAB is also classified as being in extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 standards (SJVACPD, n.d.). As shown in the following table, the SJVAPCD has established specific criteria pollutants thresholds of significance for the operation of specific projects. SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants Air Pollutant Tons/Year CO 100 Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 10 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 10 Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 27 PM10 15 PM2.5 15 Source: (SJVACPD, 2015) The proposed project would be in compliance with the significance thresholds for ROG (10 tons/year), NOX (10 tons/year), and PM10 (15 tons/year). Under GAMAQI guidelines, any proposed project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. Impacts of local pollutants are cumulatively significant when the combined emissions from the project and other planned projects will exceed air quality standards. The project would not increase any criteria pollutant beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVAPCD. The project would not result in any individual significant adverse air quality related effects. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. c. Less Than Significant Impact. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved that expose sensitive receptors to sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Examples of the types of land use that are sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The most sensitive portions of the population are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include Vista West High School located 0.07 mile east of the site. Based on the Small Project Analysis Levels screening tool, the project would not significantly expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (SJVAPCD, 2020). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors. d. No Impact. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This project is not included on the list of land uses generally regarded to have site odor problems per Table 6 of the GAMAQI (SJVACPD, 2015). Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to odors affecting a substantial number of people. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. No Impact. The project site is developed and paved. In addition, the project is located within an urban area. Thus, there is no suitable habitat for special-status species and is no potential for special-status species to be present within the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on special status species. b. No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site. This project is also not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 12 of 21 Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c. No Impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, located at the project site, and no features identified as wetlands categories are found in the National Wetlands Inventory within the project site (Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2021). Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on federally protected wetlands. d. No Impact. The project site is developed and does not have suitable habitat for nursery sites. The project site is not within an essential habitat connectivity area (CDFW, 2010). In addition, according to the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) the project site is not within a wildlife corridor. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts on migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. e. No Impact. The project site does not include biological resources that are protected by local policies. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f. No Impact. Please refer to response IV.e. 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. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. No Impact. According to the Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield Map, the project site does not include a historic building or site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on a historical resource. b. No Impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the majority of archeological sites within the city lie outside of urban development areas. The project site is paved, and its soil has been disturbed previously. The applicant intends to use the existing building during operation of the project and earth-moving activities would not be required. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on an archeological resource. c. No Impact. The project site is developed and is not within or adjacent to a former cemetery. As discussed in V.b above, the project would not require any ground disturbance. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to disturbing human remains. VI ENERGY a. Less Than Significant Impact. The applicant intends to use the existing building and no construction is proposed. The existing building would require the permanent use of energy to operate. The project would comply with modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new commercial buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on energy resources. b. Less Than Significant Impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, the project would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost- saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 13 of 21 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a.i Less Than Significant Impact. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected of occurring within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge -Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. The applicant intends to use the existing building during the operation of the project. Structures are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Thus, the project would not increase the risk of seismic hazards. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to a known earthquake fault. a.ii Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to response VII.a.i. a.iii Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to response VII.a.i. Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high ground water combined with high potential seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact (USDA, 2022). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. a.iv No Impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes (City of Bakersfield, 2001). The project site is generally flat, there are no such geologic features located at the project site, and the site is not located near the Kern River Canyon. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on related to landslides. b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is underlain by Granoso loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This soil type has a low-to-moderate susceptibility to erosion. Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to erosion. c. Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to response VII.a.i through VII.a.iv . d. Less Than Significant Impact. Soils within the project site have a low shrink-swell potential (USDA, 2022). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to expansive soils. e. No Impact. The project site contains a septic tank. The distance to the nearest sewer is approximately 1290 feet west from the project site. Per the Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 15.09.070, the site would not be required to connect to the City’s Sewer system since the closest sewer is located more than one thousand feet from the nearest property line. In addition, the City requires that all permitted septic systems meet the requirements of the adopted Kern County Onsite Wastewater Local Area Management Plan and obtain a separate permit from Kern County Environmental Health. Therefore, the project would result in a no impact related to septic tanks. f. No Impact. According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the MCGP, the city has a very low potential to contain paleontological resources. In addition, as discussed in V.b S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 14 of 21 above, the project would not require any ground disturbance. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on unique paleontological resources, sites or unique geologic features. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts. Although the project is expected to increase GHG emissions, emissions by a single project into the atmosphere are not necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. Global climate change could result in adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be relatively small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis. Global climate change is an issue where the causes and effects are not just regional or statewide, but worldwide. The impacts of this project are not considered significant given the efforts made to reduce emissions of GHGs from the project through design measures and standards, plus further mitigation accomplished at the statewide level through California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations adopted pursuant to AB32. Regulation and policy that will result in the reduction of GHG emissions in new residential and commercial developments include but are not limited to Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, AB 1493 motor vehicle standards, compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Air Quality Conservation Element as well as SJVAPCD Air Quality Guidelines and Rules. With local, regional and state regulations and other air quality regulations implemented, impacts would be minimized. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. b. Less Than Significant Impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. According to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, there must be statewide reduction GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 29% from BAU emission levels projected for 2020. In addition, per SB 375 requirements, CARB has adopted regional reduction targets, which call for a 5% reduction in per-capita emissions by 2020 and 10% reduction in 2035 within the San Joaquin Valley using 2005 as the baseline. These regional reduction targets will be a part of the Kern COG Sustainable Communities Strategy. The SJVAPCD has adopted guidance (Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA) and a policy (District Policy – Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency). As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan. The project achieves BAU GHG emissions reduction equal to or greater than the 29% targeted reduction goal CARB defines BAU as “the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.” The project is consistent with these statewide measures and considered not significant or cumulatively considerable under CEQA. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Less Than Significant Impact. The record does not indicate that this project (or this type of land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to be a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 15 of 21 related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to response IX.a. c. Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest school is Vista West High School located 0.07 mile east of the site. As discussed in response VIII.a, the project would not involve the transport or use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. d. No Impact. The project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023) (State Water Resources Control Board, 2023). Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to a hazardous waste site. e. No Impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County, 2012). The closest airport to the project site is Meadow Field Airport located about 4 miles northeast from the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on safety or noise within an airport land use area. f. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The proposed project, typical of urban development in Bakersfield, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (January 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g. No Impact. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area covered by the Hillside Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department to address the issue of wild land fires and urban development. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to wild land fires. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. No Impact. The project site is paved and contains a building. The applicant intends to use the existing building during operation of the project and earth-moving activities would not be required. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. Less Than Significant Impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by the City. According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City receives a significant all of its supplies from groundwater sources. The UWMP concludes that the City has sufficient supplies for current and future entitlements through 2040 for normal, single-day, and multiple-dry year scenarios (City of Bakersfield, 2020). The City provided a “Verification of Water Service” letter for the project, and therefore groundwater levels have already been accounted for in the UWMP with the project (a future entitlement). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies or recharge. c.i No Impact. There are no streams or rivers on the project site. Existing drainage patterns will not be altered, and the project would not result in the increase of impervious surface. Soil within the project site has a low-to-moderate susceptibility to erosion. Due to the characteristics of the on- site soil type and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion or displacement of soils. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to altering the existing drainage pattern of the area. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 16 of 21 c.ii No Impact. Please refer to response X.c. c.iii No Impact. Please refer to response X.c. c.iv No Impact According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area or 500-year floodplain (FEMA, 2021). Therefore, the project would result in no impact on flood flows. d. No Impact. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA, 2021). The project is not located near any ocean or an enclosed body of water and therefore, would not be subject to inundation by tsunami or seiche. A mudflow is a type of landslide where earth and surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. As discussed in VI.a.iv, landslides, including mudflow, occur on steeper slopes in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon. The project site is generally flat, there are no such geologic features located at the project site, and the site is not located near the Kern River Canyon Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the inundation caused by flood, seiche, tsunami, or mud flows. e. No Impact. Please refer to response X.g. f. No Impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to obstructing a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. No Impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City. The project is not a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project would not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the division of an established community. b. No Impact. The project is required to be consistent with the MBGP. The project is to change the zone district to a corresponding compatible zone with the General Plan Land Use designation. The record does not indicate that there are identified environmental conflicts or inconsistencies with said policies or zoning regulations. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on any land use plan, policy, or regulations. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No Impact. The project site is within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield. However, there are no oil wells found on the site (California Department of Conservation, 2023). Prior to recordation of a final map, the developer must comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code § 16.20.060 which addresses the mineral holder(s) right to agree to the recordation a final map on the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value. b. No Impact. Please refer to response XII.a. XIII. NOISE a. Less Than Significant Impact. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation will result in a 20-decibel reduction in noise for habitable interior space. In addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will contribute to decreasing the ambient noise levels from the adjoining area. The proposed project is compatible with existing land uses in the project area and areas immediately adjoining the project parcel. The project will not expose people or generate noise in excess of those standards found in the Noise Element of the MBGP. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to excessive noise levels. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 17 of 21 b. No Impact. The project would not require any ground disturbance or use of heavy machinery that would cause vibration. In addition, there is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground borne vibration or noise within the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to groundborne vibration. c. No Impact. Please refer to response XI.e. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not likely induce population growth in this area because it is a zone change from A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing), not residential. The project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. b. No Impact. The project site consists of a paved lot and a building. Therefore, the project would not displace existing housing or persons. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on housing. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES a.i Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. Though the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on fire protection performance objectives. a.ii Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out. Current City Police services standards require 1.09 officers for every 1,000 people in the City. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on police protection performance objectives. a.iii No Impact. The nearest school is Vista West High School located 0.07 mile east of the site. Vista West High School is part of the Kern High School District. The project would not include residential development, induce population growth, or increase the number of students within the service area of the Kern High School District. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on the performance objectives of a school. a.iv No Impact. The project proposes no increase in population for the area and would not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or create a substantial need for new parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on the performance objectives of recreational facilities. a.v Less Than Significant Impact. The project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts on the performance objectives of other public facilities. XVI. RECREATION a. No Impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. b. No Impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. XVII. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a. Less Than Significant Impact. A Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis was prepared for this project (Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, 2023). Policy 36 of the Circulation S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 18 of 21 Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan requires the City of Bakersfield to prevent streets and intersections from degrading below a level of service C, where possible, through dedication of adjacent right-of-way, access improvements, or an area wide impact fee. The Trip Generation and VMT Analysis determined that the project would increase daily trip generation by 250 trips. In addition, AM and PM peak hour trips would increase by 40 and 18 trips, respectively. The City’s threshold for requiring further analysis for Level of Service is whether a project would increase peak hour vehicle trips by 50 trips or more. The project would not exceed this threshold. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on program plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system. b. Less Than Significant Impact. VMT analysis for the project was conducted following the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory guidelines. The OPR advisory contains screening thresholds for identifying whether a land use project would result in a less than significant impact on traffic capacity. One screening threshold pertains to commercial developments with stores no larger than 50,000 square feet of building space. Developments this size typically provide more proximate shopping destinations, thereby reducing VMT. The building on the project site is less than 50,000 square feet (Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, 2023). Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to CEQA section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is with the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on geometric hazards. d. Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to IX.f. The project would not impact any emergency management agency’s ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on emergency access. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a. No Impact. The record does not support a finding that this project site is eligible for listing or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. Correspondence was sent to the local tribes pursuant to State of California Senate Bill 18. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on tribal cultural resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. b. No Impact. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project site is a significant tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. No Impact. The project would require new connections to water, electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.). The project would not require the construction of a new or expanded utility facility. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the relocation or construction of q new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facility. b. Less Than Significant Impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by the City. According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City receives a significant all of its supplies from groundwater sources. The UWMP concludes that the City has sufficient supplies for current and future entitlements through 2040 for normal, single-day, and multiple-dry year scenarios (City of Bakersfield, 2020). The City provided a “Verification of Water Service” letter for the project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on water supplies. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 19 of 21 c. No Impact. The project site contains a septic tank. The City requires that all permitted septic systems meet the requirements of the adopted Kern County Onsite Wastewater Local Area Management Plan and obtain a separate permit from Kern County Environmental Health. Since the project site has a septic system, the project would not require wastewater treatment from the City. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to wastewater. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. As of July 2013, the landfill had a remaining permitted capacity of 32,808,260 cubic yards and a maximum permitted throughput of 4,500 tons/day (CalRecycle, 2013). Using a factor of 5 pounds solid waste/1,000 square foot/day for commercial and light industrial uses, 16,104- square-feet of development would generate about 81 pounds solid waste/day (0.04 tons/day) (CalRecycle, 2019). The 0.04 tons/day of solid waste generated by the project accounts for 0.0008% of the maximum permitted throughput of the landfill. Thus, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to the generation of excessive solid waste. e. No Impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on any solid waste statutes and regulations. XX. WILDFIRE a. Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to response IX.f. b. No Impact. As discussed in response IX.g, the project site is not within a wild land fire hazard zone. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on wildfire pollutant exposure or uncontrolled spread of wildfire. c. No Impact. Please refer to response XX.b above. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on exacerbated fire risk related to infrastructure. d. No Impact. Please refer to response XX.b above. XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section IV and V above, special status species do not have the potential to be within the project site. In addition, the record does not support a finding that this project site is eligible for listing or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources the project site does not the project site. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the responses above, the project has no impacts that would be defined as individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 20 of 21 c. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the responses above, the project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST 1. California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. California, United States. Retrieved May 16, 2023, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ 2. California Department of Conservation. (2023). Well Finder. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/- 118.94276/37.12885/6 3. California Department of Transporation. (2019). California State Scenic Highway Map. California, United Stats. Retrieved May 16, 2023, from https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa 4. CalRecycle. (2013, July 1). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. California, United States. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3931?siteID=742 5. CalRecycle. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. California, United States. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates 6. CDFW. (2010, February). California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. California, United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366&inline 7. City of Bakersfield. (2001). Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. 8. City of Bakersfield. (2002, December). Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Bakersfield, California, United States. Retrieved May 16, 2023, from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/37a2e20d- e610-431f-a222-9f4f2ecd2ddd 9. City of Bakersfield. (2020, June). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Bakersfield, California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/BK_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf 10. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023). Envirostor. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=7321+rosedale+hwy%2C+bakersfield% 2C+ca 11. FEMA. (2021, October 21). FEMA Flood Map Service Center Panel 06029C1825F. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=7321%20rosedale%20hwy%2C%20bakersfield%2 C%20ca#searchresultsanchor 12. Kern County. (2008, January). Lake Isabella Flood Area. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://kernpublicworks.com/building-and-code/floodplain-management/lake-isabella- flood-area/ 13. Kern County. (2009, December). Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-Dam- Failure-Plan.pdf 14. Kern County. (2012, November 13). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\CEQA\Public Circulation ISND\IS_ND_22-0451.docxx Page 21 of 21 https://www.liveuptehachapi.com/DocumentCenter/View/3400/ALUCP2012?bidId=#:~:text=This%2 0Kern%20County%20Airport%20Land%20Use%20Compatibility%20Plan%20will%20be,in%20the%20Cou nty%20and%20those 15. Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers. (2023). Trip Generation and VMT Analysis for the Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at 7321 Rosedale Highway in Bakersfield, CA. Bakersfield. 16. SJVACPD. (2015, February 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. California, United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI- 2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF 17. SJVACPD. (n.d.). Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. California, United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm 18. SJVAPCD. (2020, November 13). Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL). California, United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI- SPAL.PDF 19. State Water Resources Control Board. (2023). Geotracker. California, United States. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ 20. Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2021, May 1). National Wetlands Inventory. United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ 21. USDA. (2022, September 1). Web Soil Survey. California, United States. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CHANGE LOCATED AT 7321 ROSEDALE HIGHWAY. (ZC NO. 22-0451). WHEREAS, Francisco A Macedo filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department requesting an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) on 0.37 acres located at 7321 Rosedale Highway, as shown on attached Exhibit “A”, (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, July 20, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Negative Declaration and Project, 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 Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, initial study, and special studies, 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, at least 20 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. A Negative Declaration was prepared and properly noticed for public review. Page 2 of 2 3. A Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with CEQA, staff prepared an initial study and determined the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on July 20, 2023, on a motion by Commissioner _____and seconded by Commissioner ______, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED ______________________________________ CHAIR ZACHARY BASHIRTASH City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits (attached): Exhibit A: Location Map By: NTopete \ S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\1. Hearing and Noticing Documents\CC & PC\PC\Draft\PC RES ENV 22-0451.docx Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE DISTRICT LOCATED at 7321 ROSEDALE HIGHWAY, (ZC NO. 22-0451). WHEREAS, Frank A Macedo filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department requesting to change the zone district from A (Agriculture) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) on 0.37 acres located 7321 Rosedale Highway, as shown in attached Exhibit “A” (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the applicant and/or property owner has indicated the purpose of the Project is to zone 0.32 acres located at 7321 Rosedale Highway to be consistent with the surrounding General Manufacturing zoned properties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, July 20, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Negative Declaration and change to the zone district, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing testimony was received both in support and opposition of the Project; and WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, initial study, and special studies, 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, at least 20 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. 3. Public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project. Page 2 of 2 4. The Project is compatible with the zone districts and development of surrounding properties, and is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows: 1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. The Project is hereby recommended for approval by the City Council subject to the conditions stated in Exhibit A and incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 located on the map as shown in Exhibit B and as specifically described in Exhibit C, all of which are incorporated herein. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on July 20, 2023, on a motion by Commissioner _____and seconded by Commissioner ______, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED ______________________________________ CHAIR ZACHARY BASHIRTASH City of Bakersfield Planning Commission Exhibits (attached): Exhibit A: Conditions Exhibit B: Location Map Exhibit C: Legal Description By: Ntopete\S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\1. Hearing and Noticing Documents\CC & PC\PC\Draft\PC RES ZC 22-0451.docx By NTopete /S:\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2022\22-0451 (7321 Rosedale)\1. Hearing and Noticing Documents\CC & PC\PC\Draft\ExhA Condition - Mitigation.docx EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE 22-0451 CITY ATTORNEY 1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued. The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Prior to the City’s approval of any construction plans associated with any development project, subdivision, or minor land division within the Zone Change (ZC) area, the developer must submit the following for review and approval by the City Engineer: a. Fully executed dedication for Rosedale Hwy to arterial standards for the full frontage of the ZC area, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Dedications must include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. b. Comprehensive drainage study of the ZC area is to be submitted for approval by the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department Subdivision section. The drainage for the ZC area is to be retained onsite and shall be privately maintained. 2. Prior to the recording of any final map or issuance of any certificates of occupancy for development within the ZC area, whichever is earlier, the developer must (a) construct all infrastructure, both public and private, within the boundary of the ZC area, including, but not limited to, any and all boundary streets to the centerline of the street as required by the City Engineer and (b) construct, and acquire any necessary right-of-way to construct, any off-site infrastructure required to support development of the ZC as determined by the City Exhibit “A” Zone Change 22-0451 Page 2 of 2 Engineer. Phasing of the construction of the required infrastructure may be allowed by the City Engineer. Per City Council Resolution 035-13, any development within the ZC area must comply with the City’s “complete streets” policy. 3. Prior to the City’s approval of any construction plans associated with any development project, subdivision, or minor land division within the ZC area, the developer must take all actions necessary to add the ZC area to the Consolidated Maintenance District (“CMD”) and pay all fees for inclusion in the CMD or, if the development is already within the CMD, update the maintenance district documents as provided in Bakersfield Municipal Code section 13.04.021 or as otherwise required by the City Engineer. 4. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. 5. Prior to the City’s issuance of any building permits for construction within the ZC area, or an earlier time established through conditions of a subsequent City-approved subsequent development project, subdivision, or minor land division within the ZC area, the developer must pay all development fees for the ZC area including, but not limited to, the adopted regional traffic impact fee, local mitigation fees, any major bridge and thoroughfare district fees, and any planned sewer and drainage area fees. Exhibit B Exhibit C